The Kids Are All Right, But Not the Queer Movement

By Guest Contributor Daisy Hernandez, cross-posted from Colorlines

Every once in awhile, a Hollywood movie hits such a perfect note of familiarity that you leave the theater feeling like you just watched a film about your white friends and it was funny, sweet–marvelous, even. And, as you’d expect, messed up on race. Not messed up in a Mel Gibson sort of way. It’s nothing outright hateful, but rather annoying and mundane, like when the white gay guy says his décor is, ya know, “Asiany,” and you debate whether to spill red wine on his new, white rug or give him an Edward Said book.

This is the charm of Lisa Cholodenko’s new summer hit, The Kids Are All Right. Her white characters are so familiar and even so likable that you want to believe all they need is a better reading list. If only race relations were so easy.

Ostensibly, The Kids Are All Right is about two lesbian moms and their teenage kids who want to meet their sperm donor dad. It’s an all-star cast with Julianne Moore playing Jules, the flaky, new age mom, opposite Annette Bening, who delightfully remade herself into the soft butch mom Nic. There’s Oscar buzz and critics are rightly praising Cholodenko (High Art, Laurel Canyon) for the film’s solid script and the actors for stellar performances. Salon’s Andrew O’Hehire declared that the movie “ranks with the most compelling portraits of an American marriage, regardless of sexuality, in film history.”

It’s true. This is a film about two married people who are bored by their middle age sex lives, worried about their son’s choice of friends, and still recounting with giggles how they first met while arguing about how much one of them is drinking. They’re complicated, self-involved and, in their best moments, genuinely loving.

From another perspective though, The Kids Are All Right is also a revealing portrait of where the gay movement has been headed for some time now: white suburbia, Mexican gardener included.

The film is set in Southern California, where Nic and Jules have a comfortable, three-bedroom home, arguments about composting, a glass (or three) of red wine with dinner, a daughter (Alice in Wonderland’s Mia Wasikowska) and son (Josh Hutcherson) testing the limits of parental authority. They’re the all-American, white family next door.

The political reference point for their home life is not a group of pissed-off drag queens circa 1969. It’s a Mad Men-style 1950s nostalgia. Jules is the stay-at-home mom trying her hand at a landscaping business and feeling that her doctor wife doesn’t appreciate her. Nic is the breadwinner who has to have a drink when she gets home from work. The scenario is inviting, familiar, a storyline about American family life that we want to believe, gay or het.

Like cinematic white heteros and gays in San Francisco’s Castro district, Nic and Jules’ contact with people of darker hues is limited. There’s a black restaurant hostess (Yaya DaCosta, a runner up from America’s Next Top Model), a Mexican gardener (Joaquín Garrido, Like Water for Chocolate), and an Indian teenage love interest (Kunal Sharma, The Cheetah Girls). By the end of the film, the three people of color have been dumped, fired or left behind in confusion.

To be fair to Cholodenko, she was probably just following Hollywood’s race rules. The moment a main character is darker than white bread, the movie becomes about race and doesn’t appeal to a wider (read: white) audience.

But it’s also a portrait of the white gay movement, which has struggled with its race issues for some time now, most publicly after Prop. 8 passed in California and hysterical white gay boys blamed black voters for keeping them from the joys of registering at Tiffany’s. If that happened though it was largely because the movement has failed to build institutions where people of color, like those in The Kids Are All Right, play more than minor roles.

A few months ago, a friend recounted walking into a meeting with the directors of statewide LGBT organizations. It was a majority white room. That the convening looked more like a Tea Party gathering than a 2008 Vote Obama youth rally should have been on the top of the agenda. It wasn’t.

Part of the success of Cholodenko’s movie rests in that, intentioned or not, she’s rendered on the big screen the racial realities of this new gay world order. When Jules is struggling with guilt about what she’s doing outside her matrimonial bed, she thinks Luis, the Mexican gardener she’s hired, is smirking at her, which he is. With comedic self-righteousness, Jules points out that he blows his nose too often. “I have allergies,” Luis explains. Fumbling through her words, Jules accuses of him having a drug problem and fires him.

The audience laughs. I laughed. At Jules, at her hysterical reaction, at how uncomfortably true it is that behind the white lesbian niceties can sit the old racist stereotypes of a Gov. Jan Brewer.

It’s a small moment in the film but a reminder of how the gay world mimics the straight one, where economic power goes hand in hand with a racial hierarchy. Were Luis, the Mexican gardener, to get home, take off his overalls and turn into a flaming queen, it would be hard to argue convincingly that he and Jules have a political struggle in common these days. Not impossible, but certainly a stretch.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. What’s Happening « Witchy Feminist on 06 Aug 2010 at 2:44 pm

    [...] Are the Queers All Right? [...]

Comments

  1. Rachael wrote:

    Brilliant analysis. I think you’ve got it spot-on. Queers have got some serious race and class issues that just seem to be deepening.

    You know, the whole ‘gay-marriage’ sha-bang has bothered me since I was a teenager. It’s just so upper class. While I’m clearly all for people making kinship choices that work for them, is getting legally married really the top priority for most queers in this country.

    Have you been to a pride rally this year? I went to a few, and all I saw was suburbia. It was infuriating. In my home town (Cincinnati, OH) this year, they refused to hire trans (especially trans-male) performers. They even had a $50 a head formal wear ‘gay-la.’ Who can afford that? (I’m sure they simply neglected to mention the ‘trans-la’ or the ‘bi-la.’ )

    Nothing about PRIDE is any longer a celebration of the night trans-people took to the streets to demand equality. It’s about white-washed, ‘rich-washed’ consumerism that alienates, I don’t know… most queer people?

  2. Asli Omur wrote:

    This was a wonderful piece. Thank you.

    I want to say these things. I think these things. This article reminds of something I have recently investigated.

    Target Corp. has had dozens of accounts and claims made against it in the vien of blatant racial discrimination, and discrimination against the elderly, the physically impaired and others, and the like within the past five years – all of which have been either settled out of court or have won the plaintiffs hefty lawsuits. Just two days ago, it came to light that Target Corp. was (along with Best Buy) providing the Republican party and the group Minnesota Forward who is anti-gay marriage/rights with funds.

    The only persons of record who have stood up against acts of racism & discrimination from Target have largely been people of color and those who have had to deal with the events directly – but as soon as the case brought gays and lesbians into the fold, suddenly, a much wider audience appeared. Why weren’t all these people recognizing others injustices?

    We shouldn’t be so blinded by our own struggle, that we don’t feel, see or understand the struggle of others.

  3. Asli Omur wrote:

    Also some interesting things I noticed in the film:

    1. the Indian boy is seen in the “Asian” way of being not aggressive enough.

    2. Ruffalo’s character just decides the “black” girl is only up for sex and not for a serious relationship, so he chooses to end the relationship sans conversation or even inclusion of her feelings.

  4. Asli Omur wrote:

    3. The Mexican gardener is used as comic relief.

  5. Leda wrote:

    A little off topic… but damn… Joaquin Garrido was in “Water for Chocolate” and he’s playing a gardener??

  6. Knightgee wrote:

    @Rachael

    I think it should be remembered that marriage comes with tax benefits that can be invaluable to those who are not as financially well-off, not to mention the myriad of other state and federal benefits that come with it. It’s about a lot more than just registering at Tiffany’s, though I agree that the issue seems to have consumed the mainstream discourse of gay rights for these last few years especially.

  7. laprofe63 wrote:

    Why would wealthy white gay folks take their class and race privileges any less for granted just because “their” group suffers from less-than-full equal rights? We might hope they would, but that’s just because we think they shouldn’t.

    Clearly, compassion for others doesn’t necessarily or directly grow out of an experience of discrimination. It was/is the same problem with white (middle class) feminists, socially conservative African Americans, etc.

    Interesting reading of the film. Sorta makes me want to see it….

  8. Gillian wrote:

    @Leda, I had the EXACT same thought!

    Back on topic: I’ve been curious about this movie, what with all the buzz and marketing muscle behind it. But the very whiteness of it was a bit off-putting to me. I will probably still see it, as it seems like a good movie and represents an oasis in the otherwise barren landscape that has been the 2010 summer movie season.

  9. Salix wrote:

    Well, sure. The mainstream LGB(T) movement is learning all the lessons from the mainstream feminist movement. If you make the face of your marginalized group white and upper/middle class, and focus your efforts on issues that are white and upper/middle class issues, you’ll eventually be tolerated by the powerful. You just have to keep ignoring the people you stepped on to “achieve” that toleration.

    But just try proposing anything that radically transforms societal structures…

  10. re.sister.with.love wrote:

    Thank you for this brilliant article! Very well put.

    I have always felt that the demand for marriage equality is irrelevant to the true queer struggle for equality. What we should we fighting for is the separation of social benefits from an archaic, het institution like marriage.

    I mean, there will always be people who will hate sharing the planet with certain other people. The thing to do is deprive them of their power to hurt us in any meaningful way, particularly through economic marginalization.

  11. Arelle wrote:

    As a white gay man, I am frequently frustrated with racism within the LGBT community. “Stonewall Uprising” similarly left out voices of LGBTs of color which is a shame because of the diversity of original movers and shakers in our movement.

    However, I agree with Knightgee. Same-sex marriage is as much a financial priority as anything else; one financial analyst estimated that the average (unmarried) gay couple will spend upwards of $200k more over a lifetime because of the lack of equality in taxes, retirement planning, insurance, etc. It’s easy to dismiss us as people who just want to shop at Tiffany’s for our big day; actually, it’s wrong to say that. We can go shopping for a wedding whether it’s legal or not. What we want (most of us anyway) are the rights, and thusly the validation that we are so frequently denied by being of a sometimes-considered inferior group.

  12. Blackandalive wrote:

    Nice. I think you nailed. it.

  13. Darth Paul wrote:

    Since the Anita Bryant days, the primary tactic of queer rights has been to say that all are welcome (ie. the choice of the rainbow- all colors!- as a defining emblem) while showing almost exclusively white middle-to-upper class people (usually men) as the face of the movement. Basically, the message is, “We’re just like everyone else, and you can be too!”

    Much as I differ with Camille Paglia on many issues, I agree that apeing the straights is no solution. Yes, we all have our various backgrounds and traditions (even white ones vary considerably) and it’s our birthright to honor them as we wish, but opting for cookiecutter mimcry and assimilation is a cop out that I want no part in.

    What I WOULD like to see is more outreach to disadvantage/at risk queer youth, better substance abuse treatment geared towards queer folks, vastly improved legal resources for those who can’t afford it, facilities/options for elderly queers, and asylum assistance for queers at risk of torture, imprisonment, or death in their home countries.

  14. Darth Paul wrote:

    I omitted the right to serve in the armed forces and all branches of government as well. My bad.

  15. trooper6 wrote:

    I hadn’t planned on seeing it because the femmier lesbian (Moore) sleeps with Ruffalo.

    Yeah, yeah…I’ve heard that is totally wasn’t about gender…that it was well done, blah, blah, blah.

    But isn’t it funny that so often lesbians just happen to keep sleeping with men in movies over and over? Gay men don’t just happen to sleep with straight women over and over in movies. Straight men don’t just happen to sleep with gay men in movies over and over. Straight women don’t just happen to sleep with lesbian in movies over and over.

    I didn’t feel well disposed towards the film because of that fact already. Now, this brilliant reading on race makes me even less inclined to even see it on cable.

  16. belly-deep wrote:

    @re.sister.with.love

    “The demand for marriage equality is irrelevant to the true queer struggle for equality. What we should be fighting for is the separation of social benefits from an archaic, het institution like marriage.”

    exactly how i feel. as a queer woman of color I was planning on avoiding this movie simply because i refuse to financially support images of marginalized communities that hew so closely to kyriarchal norms. these films are a disservice to most queers and in the end only help those whose race and class privilege was already providing a buffer for them from the more extreme forms of marginalization suffered by queers who do not have those privileges. tolerance is a bullsh*t pity bone off the master’s table. what queers require is complete legal acceptance and support, and no less than the decentering of heteronormativity as a dominant paradigm for our culture is required for this.

  17. SayNay wrote:

    @ Gillian & Leda Co-sign. This probably speaks to the politics of race in tv/film both on and off the screen.

    This article’s analysis was excellent and I am even more intrigued to see the film. I would encourage folks to read some of the comments brewing over at Colorlines. It seems people have settled into “thank you for highlighting these issues in the broader queer space” vs “don’t go airing dirty laundry/you must be straight so you don’t get it”.

  18. lynn wrote:

    Annoying. This is why I actually prefer movies/TV shows with NO POC in them, especially black people, because I am black and just am so sick of the stereotypes. I am middle-aged and there are basically no substantive roles for middle-aged black women so I’d rather just not be bothered with the cliched versions of POC. Just put all young, white, blonde people in movies, I won’t have any high expectations but I also won’t have to be insulted for like the kajillionth time.

  19. NancyP wrote:

    There is a practical non-fiscal reason for some LGBTQ people to consider marriage, whatever their color and class statuses are. Marriage consolidates mutual rights and responsibilities and gives legal decision-making priority to the spouse over the claims of the other spouse’s parent, child, sibling, etc. This effect of marriage is used to decide legal conflict between spouse and in-laws in heterosexual relationships.

    That aside, I think that if I were a LGBT leader, I would have made ENDA the priority of the movement.

    I haven’t seen the film.

    Rachel, I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that Cincinnati even has a Pride parade.

  20. shot wrote:

    “hysterical white gay boys…keeping them from the joys of registering at Tiffany’s”

    i call your mexican gardener and raise you a white gay man that is not able to control his emotions and who values possessions over people.

    i’m with laprofe63–i wish there were more compassion on all sides.

  21. maus wrote:

    This movie looks as dull, cliche-ridden, and unchallenging as any mayo-drenched lifetime movie. The trailer made me cringe.

  22. ladymorgue wrote:

    @lynn or stick figures
    @Leda Yeah. that pretty much why a lot of stars in Latin America don’t do American films they get roles as spicy Maids and gardeners with allergies. I was absolutely heart broken to read about Joaquín Garrido ’s scene. I don’t why people think that’s funny. It just shows that everyone is capable of prejudice(Black, white, Gay, Straight, woman ect).

  23. Beesting wrote:

    though i love your blog, your joke about gay men registering at tiffany’s felt like any underhanded and unnecessarily stereotypical comment someone would make about Prop 8. its the kind of snarky comment i’d expect from Glenn Beck, but not from this blog :-/

    on topic: as a person who is both gay and of color , this movie was offensive to both of these identities. if this movie gets any audience approval at all, i can only imagine its from a community of white, hetero, completely naive and totally uneducated to the real struggles of gay families. as it seems the filmmaker fits this same demographic. i hate that it masquerades as a liberal POV of the modern American family when its just the same old racist, sexist bullshit show.

    great review on the more subtle racial elements.

  24. April wrote:

    I enjoyed this analysis. The exclusiveness of the queer movement is exactly why I called bullshit on the white gay folks who were so mad at black people for supposedly being the reason for the passage of Prop 8 (now debunked). Even if that were true, why would non-LGBT blacks be inclined to support a movement that has so thoroughly embraced white privilege? In other words, “What have you done for me lately? Nothing. Please fall back.

    Regarding the movie: I did see it, and I enjoyed it. I did pick up on the OP’s observations regarding the characters of color, however. As soon as Yaya came on the screen, I knew she was playing the role of the “exotic black chick” who would be dumped as soon as Ruffalo’s character decided he wanted to get “serious.” But I think that’s actually in line with his character (for lack of better words, “poser” and “tool” come to mind), so I was fine with that. Garrido’s character, the gardener, was more disappointing, although typical. I am intrigued most, though, by what apparently was a revision to the character played by Kunal Sharma. According to the linked story on him, his character was originally written as a “mature, adjusted guy” but was altered midway to be “an awkward character new to romance.” I wonder why that change was made.

  25. Bushfire wrote:

    I saw this movie and I was really unimpressed, but the only problem I could think of at the time was that a lesbian couldn’t help sleeping with a man. (As if!). Thanks for the analysis, Daisy. I’m glad I got to read a more thorough critique than my own.

  26. Anna wrote:

    “… hysterical white gay boys blamed black voters for keeping them from the joys of registering at Tiffany’s.”

    Yeah, that’s totally what the “hysterical” gay men were upset about after prop. 8 passed.

    This shit shouldn’t fly here. As a queer WOC I stopped reading right at that point. Tossing around the tired stereotypes of over-emotional, materialistic gay men does not help your case. It’s not witty and it’s not cute.

  27. g531 wrote:

    Thank you.

  28. Liza wrote:

    I refused to see this movie, having read many cogent reviews by queers, who are horrified by both the heteronormativity and the racism of the film.

    While parts of the “gay movement” may want this kind of insidious anti- queer, whites- only inclusion into heteronormativy, they are NOT the majority. They are just the most accessible to the reader of MSM. Dig a bit deeper and you’ll find another story.

    I think it would be important for all reviewers to note that this film is not representative of Lesbians or queers in general and for the most part, this film is making us mad as hell.

  29. Pizzuti wrote:

    I look forward to seeing this film, but when I was tuned to NPR listening to the director explain why she chose straight actors to play lesbian roles (her reason was that “who you are doesn’t matter” or something like that), I started to get the sense that there would be other issues like this. She is more interested in reconciling queer people and mainstream society than she is on tearing down institutions of privilege.

    Yes, the queer world contains racism. This article addresses that in an effective way – which is hard, because doing so requires a tremendous grasp of principle and a sense of tact. You have to be able to effectively point to racism in the queer community without generalizations like “gay people are racist” or something like that, which I think undermines both queer people of color and the queer cause as a whole – just as queer people fail when they say “black people are homophobic” as we heard far too often after Prop 8 was passed in 2008.

    The most effective way to negotiate the complicated intersection between queer and POC, I think – and I’m very open to differing opinions on this – is to continually bring attention to the person or the thing that is missing from the picture. Rather than saying “the queer community is too white” we have to say “the queer community is NOT white and why are we pretending that it is?” It is full of people of color, and they are out on the front lines too, and I think it is through being a strong advocate of bringing those representations to the forefront that we are most effective in getting everyone on the right page.

  30. Dede wrote:

    Yep, there were a number of things wrong with this film, but the ones that stood out for me were:

    @Asli Omur

    “2. Ruffalo’s character just decides the “black” girl is only up for sex and not for a serious relationship, so he chooses to end the relationship sans conversation or even inclusion of her feelings.”

    My thought’s exactly! I was like “Wait, so he said he’s breaking up with the black waitress because he’s looking for something serious? All right. But he isn’t do anything different with the waitress that he’s doing with the lesbian mother – he’s just sexing both of them. But still he thinks he can find stability with a white lesbian than a straight black woman. Greaaaaat.

    2. The idea that the lesbian mother of 18 years would just sleep with a man multiple times just palyed into the stereotype that lesbians aren’t REALLY gay and that they’d jump at a chance to fuck a man who was interested. Greaaat.

  31. Just A Thought wrote:

    @ lady morgue:

    I saw the movie over the weekend, and the only context that the scene with the gardener could be funny is “the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar.” She was obviously cheating, was obviously unprofessional, and was trying to draw attention to anything and everything except that. She was his manager, and most likely a piss poor one at that. And he catches her doing dirt. That would make me laugh too.

    Unfortunately, the scene has so much racial baggage that the slight chuckles of catching her in the act disappeared as this man was stereotyped, and stripped of all agency to mount a defense. And then summarily dismissed.

  32. Darth Paul wrote:

    trooper6 – SO true about lesbians in film! In Bound, Monster, Splendor, Go Fish, etc- there manages to be some aspect of sexual deferrance to (hetero) men. And if that’s not present, the lesbians tend to be portrayed as asexual trolls and/or clowns. I know exceptions exist, but that they have to be exceptions is what’s crap.

    No slight to the bi females here- bi is bi, and that’s awesome. It’s the glamorization of the “available to men” *lesbian* that disgusts me.

  33. HalleBerry wrote:

    I went on the OP website and wasn’t the LEAST bit surprised that most of the comments were angry,shallow,clueless,whiny,and defensive. Some even had the nerve to challenge Ms. Hernadez’s orientation as if that has anything to do with anything. I’m not gay either but I know privilege run amok when I see it and I or she or anyone can call it out when you have the so-called ‘movement’ talking of inclusion and DOING the exact opposite. Especially when they think they have every right and then some to call out the black,hetero,Christian community. And they kept harping on her ‘Tiffany’s’ comment well boo-hoo that’s like the white people who complain there’s no BET channel for white people.

  34. rebecca wrote:

    Let’s not forget Joni’s best friend Sasha, who though “white,” is the only Jew in this movie (in LA? Really?). She is hypersexual (as opposed to her pure, virginal blond Christian bestie) and routinely criticized for her healthy teenage sexual appetite. An exoticized other and a figure of scorn/pity…how pathetic.

  35. Sue G-R wrote:

    “It’s a small moment in the film but a reminder of how the gay world mimics the straight one, where economic power goes hand in hand with a racial hierarchy.” I see what you are getting at, but I really feel that this movie is a Hollywood depiction of one lesbian relationship that is based in racist/classist assumptions, not an actual representation of the “gay world”. There is no unified gay world anymore than there is a unified straight world. We are all mixed up with each other. But the movie itself (which I refuse to see) sounds like a pretty typical depiction of a fantasy of American life that exists for very few, other than in movies and on TV. Two of the characters just happen to be lesbian. And one of them jumps the fence just to make it a bit more titillating.

  36. Springbyker wrote:

    I wrote my own review before I read this one, and I’m sorry to say that I missed the anti-Jewish portrayal, but the racist ones were too blatant to ignore. I think that Joaquin Garrido’s Luis character’s dialogue sounded like something out of a Stepin Fetchit movie, and it is disgusting that this is the type of role offered to Mexican and Chicano/a actors in 2010. I also think the character of Tanya is supposed to make Paul’s character look like more of a “bad boy” because he’s having a sexual relationship with an “exotic” Black woman. The whole film just made me want to scream. Anthony Lane wrote an interesting review in the “New Yorker,” in which he maintains that the directors were consciously addressing white racist attitudes and parodying them. I’m not so sure about that.

  37. asada wrote:

    @ Sue R – G
    you have made perhaps the most sense by staying nuetral on the issue. Who said there was even a fence?

  38. Vegetarian Cannibal wrote:

    Excellent article. I haven’t seen the movie yet–but as soon as I saw the preview I couldn’t help but think: “Oh, yet another movie about white women and their white women issues.” See “Sex in the City” and the like. And now I’m not sure I want to see the movie knowing tired racial stereotypes are in a movie as “liberal” and “progressive” as this one. *sigh*

    There IS racism within the queer community. Hell, there’s racism EVERYWHERE. But it pisses me off to no end when whites in the queer community bitch about how horrible discrimination and the like is but then turn around and shove POC into a corner and refuse to listen to their concerns. White queers have more “legitimate issues” than POC, I guess.

  39. irene wrote:

    Excellent article. Just got home from seeing the movie. I really enjoyed the women’s relationship and thought the ending effectively kicked the Ruffalo character to the curb. But I was astonished as I watched the Mexican gardener character — such blatant racism. I agree with the poster who said it was like Stephen Fetchit from an earlier era. And good point too, about the role of the “exotic” African-American waitress (though there was a good line about her just being from Brooklyn, not Ethiopia). I was really disappointed to see this genuine story full of emotional truths about a two-mom family marred by such racist portrayals in the side characters. Just kept thinking about the film’s producers, actors, script writer, and director sitting around a table going over the lines and glossing right over it. Appalling.

  40. Iany wrote:

    I find it really difficult when I read something that makes a lot of valid points and then finishes with a bit of a gaybash. Actually, sometimes they start with a gaybash too.

    Anyway, I’m not American so while I am familiar with what Fantasy!America looks like (in Australia we get a metric tonne of American movies and films to watch) and it’s not exactly what we have going on over here. It’s all shades of the same beast though. This movie sounds like a gigantic racefail of epic proportions and it’s saddening though not surprising. It deserves all the criticism it gets.

    But.

    “hysterical white gay boys blamed black voters for keeping them from the joys of registering at Tiffany’s.”

    I side with Beesting on this comment. I don’t like that the queer community is always pigeon holed as just the white ones and the male ones. Lesbians are overwhelmingly silenced and bisexual people… No one is as maligned or over-sexualised (save the intersex, transgendered and other genderqueer among us). There’s also a tendency to ignore that the queer community isn’t just white people, even if almost every gay character in movie or film that I can think of is white and male (I am looking at you United States of Tara, that one exception ended in character butchering). Even in films with POC queer people, the majority of those characters are male. But that’s not who we really are. That’s just the fiction. It’s not been my experience.

    So, I guess my point is this: There’s a lot of racism going on in mainstream depictions of queers, by queers and it needs to be pointed out for the shit that it is. But when you do, it would be good not to add homophobic slurs into the mix. It still hurts like hell to hear them.

  41. Dave wrote:

    “Let’s not forget Joni’s best friend Sasha, who though “white,” is the only Jew in this movie ”

    What?!? Where did that come from? There’s no mention at all of this character being Jewish in the movie. She doesn’t even get a last name. How can you possibly know that she is? By the same token, how do you know all the main characters aren’t Jewish? There’s no indication that Mark Ruffalo’s character isn’t, for example.

  42. lori wrote:

    I just saw the film and agree with this analysis of the race issues, along with Dan Savage’s analysis of its final, stereotypical portrayal of biological parents as evil interlopers. If the ending had been different, I might be able to agree with Anthony Lane that it’s critiquing the racism and class issues of lesbians and gays, but we are definitely meant to sympathize with the “real” family, a heteronormative, wealthy white professional family with quasiadopted cihldren, not really to focus on how they’ve made their insular family “safe” by kicking all the POC and working class people out of their lives. There’s no hint that they are or should be haunted by that fact. I stopped laughing in the middle; I was so annoyed by the whole thing.