The 'T' That Cinema is Missing

When we think of LGBT+ representation in mainstream media, we think of Orange is the New Black (2013 - present) or RuPaul's Drag Race (2009 - present): in short, we think of queer representation gracing our television screens every week in a flamboyant and fantastical way, a fun way. Both of these series in particular have given light to homosexual relationships, the discrimination of same-sex lifestyles and the art of drag, aspects of the LGBT+ community that have been acknowledged but nowhere near as popularised as they are now.

There is an issue, though, when it comes to cinema, specifically the representation of the trans community. Because when it comes to showing trans people on screen, it ends up being that they are portrayed by not only cis-actors but actors of the opposite sex; men playing trans women is just a glorified form of drag and does not honestly represent trans people, but Hollywood doesn't seem to have caught onto this.

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

A recent example of this is Dallas Buyers Club (2013). Jared Leto plays a trans woman suffering from HIV and drug addiction, a role which he barely adheres to in his acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor in 2014. Though he acknowledges the hardships of those who suffer with HIV ("[...] this is for the 36 million people who have lost the battle to AIDS"), he also goes on to say that his award reflects "[...] those of you out there who have ever felt injustice because of who you are or who you love", implying that he represents the struggles and injustices of the LGBT+ community.

Jared Leto is a heterosexual, cis-male. It's not his place to represent the community, especially considering that he isn't part of it. That's not to say that straight people, people comfortable with their assigned gender, are not allowed to be allies: of course they are, but their job is to give queer people the space to speak out, not to speak for them. 

The Danish Girl (2015)

It's considerably problematic for cis-men to play trans women (or vice versa) because it's not a true portrayal of reality and, more often than not, these actors don't understand a trans person's experience, even with a script (which, let's be honest, is usually written by a cis person as well).

Of course, Jared Leto is not the first man to play a trans woman. Lee Pace, Eddie Redmayne, Denis O'Hare, Terence Stamp, Ted Levine and Cillian Murphy can be added to that list as well. Let's not also forget that women (such as Hilary Swank and Elle Fanning) are also guilty of this, and play trans men in their respective films.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

My friend/flatmate is transgender: he identifies as a trans-masculine, non-binary individual. I asked him about tropes surrounding trans representation in Hollywood, which ones he'd change or say were unrealistic. To my horror, I found that so many parts of trans representation in our mainstream media are toxic and demonising. These are just some of the things that he listed.

• Showing the murder of trans sex workers is too hauntingly close to real life. The murder rate for people who identify as trans is infinitely higher (especially in the U.S.) than other minorities in the LGBT+ community, so to show that explicitly in a series/film is both disrespectful and painful to watch, to say the least.
• Focusing primarily on how physically transitioning and how that affects the next of kin/family of the trans person instead of showing how they feel: transitioning is obviously difficult for people to come to terms with but they don't get a say in it happening, and the focus should be on the trans individual instead of them.
• "Trans misery porn", or rather, a narrative with dysphoria and suicidal ideation at the epicentre, as opposed to celebrating the metamorphosis of someone becoming their true self.
• Explicit shots of full frontal nudity, objectifications of the trans form (whether that be male or female)

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

• Establishing stereotypes (such as "cutting hair off and strapping down your titties") that are not only misinformative of the trans experience but also potentially harmful, i.e. binding with bandages instead of approved binders, that can actually lead to fluid build-up in the lungs and cracked ribs.
• The demonisation of trans people in horror films, a subject which is touched on in a documentary called The Celluloid Closet (1995) that focuses on the depiction of homosexuality in cinema. Examples of this are Psycho (1960), Sleepaway Camp (1983), The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Split (2016), in which the plot twist/main relies on the antagonist being a member of the opposite sex. 
• The tokenisation of trans actors, such as Laverne Cox and Chaz Bono. This isn't to say that these two aren't talented individuals, but there are few and far between trans actors who are established, or even given roles for that matter. There are plenty of people who identify as transgender who are willing and more than able to fill an acting role but they are not given the chance.
• Trans women who are given a spotlight are often white, strange considering that a large part of influential culture in the LGBT+ community consists of POC. This also leads to the last point, which is the erasure of existing trans characters: Marsha P. Johnson (a black, trans activist) was omitted from Stonewall (2015), despite the fact that she was one of the frontrunners of that movement. 

Soldier's Girl (2003)

So, the problem stands that trans people in film and television are portrayed by the wrong kinds of people, and the solution to that is pretty straightforward: hire trans people to play trans characters. It's not that difficult. In the same way that Scarlett Johansson and Tilda Swinton have been criticised for playing roles attributed to characters of an Asian heritage, the actors aforementioned are guilty of playing roles attributed to a gender expression/lifestyle which is alien to them. They cannot truly represent a trans character as a cis-person in the same way that you cannot represent an Asian character as a British person. It doesn't work.

If Hollywood would be more open-minded and cast out their net a little further, they would find actors suitable for these LGBT+ roles. Imagine the success they would gather if they held true to representation: I know from experience that it made a world of difference for me to see lesbian characters on television because it meant that I didn't have to be closeted, that I was normalised, that I was validated. 

It would be nice to be able to watch a film with real diversity and know that not only are these people real but they are celebrated through the form of cinema, and not met with deprecation or erased completely. 

- K

Film Reviews: One Misstep For Man [Apollo 18, 2011]

Apollo 18 (2011)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed].

The idea of the unknown lurking out in space has been done successfully many times. It's been conceptualised in popular films such as Alien (1979) and the format works because we, as human beings, are terrified of the 'other', the paranormal or extraterrestrial. Why? Because we don't really understand it. 

Apollo 18 (2011) tried to follow this method ("tried" being the operative word here) and, to some extent, it is successful in doing so. However, this easily forgotten sci-fi film lacks the constraint to execute the ways of "less is more", and I think that is it's primary downfall. 

The plot follows two astronauts named Nate (played by Lloyd Owen) and Ben (played by Warren Christie), employed by the Department of Defense to place motion trackers on the moon, mainly to monitor the Soviet Union. It becomes apparent, however, that the DoD has sent them there under false pretenses, as we later find out that they're not there to spy on "those damn Russians" but to investigate the existence of extraterrestrials. Not only are they real but they're something that the U.S. government have been hiding the knowledge of. 

There are a few reasons why Apollo 18 failed to deliver on its intrigue, though. Firstly, the pacing is shockingly slow: it took at least 15 minutes into the runtime for anything of significance to happen, prior to that being irrelevant exposition that read as both unnecessary and unimaginative writing (yes, I'm aware that flashcards are a stereotype of found-footage films, but that doesn't mean I have to like it). I'm going under the assumption that the first 15 minutes of the film, which primarily consisted of shots of the astronauts with their families, was there to humanise the characters we were seeing. In my opinion, I don't think the film was able to achieve that. At no point during the film did I feel particularly bad for either astronaut: they came across as egotistical, somewhat paranoid and disgustingly patriotic. 

Secondly, the dialogue. Endless, arduous, boring. I found myself disinterested by certain scenes that felt like they had no place being there, which meant I wasn't really paying attention when the film was actually trying to show me vital plot points. At times, this film showed moments of brilliance, but its issue is that it's inconsistent: decent scenes and shots were often times sandwiched between mediocre ones. 

I can say that there were aspects of Apollo 18 that I did like. For example, the use of a 70s camera lense to actually film it: it felt authentic and added a certain stylistic charm. I also genuinely enjoyed the role of the "motion detectors", because not only were they relevant to the plot, but their footage was often dispersed amongst scenes and would zoom in on what was seemingly nothing. It creates a suspenseful atmosphere, because you're not entirely sure what you're supposed to be looking for, but you know that there's something there.

However, the real clincher for me was the third act of the movie, the 'climax' (though I'm really not sure you could call it that, on this occasion). After Nate is infected, the film stumbles its way towards the end by killing off his character and shoddily setting up the death of the other one, Ben. In the space of one conversation, Ben goes from survival mode to defeatism and then back to the hope of getting home, after the DoD contact him to say that he has been compromised and that they will not be sending a rescue team for him.

Don't get me wrong: I assume if I were stranded on the moon (or any planet away from home), I would have mixed emotions too. But because Ben's character is never really established as anything other than slightly insecure and nationalistic, I found his violent mood swings to be ill-fitted within the script. 

When I earlier referred to "less is more", what I meant was that Apollo 18 has a tendency to drag out a scene or add a scene where it's really not needed. For example, when Nate first becomes infected, we get quick cuts of him lashing out at a camera (much like the style of Sunshine (2007), where we see shots of Mark Strong's character): this is only for the audience's sake to amp up the creep factor but that doesn't really work when you're marketing this film as part of the found-footage genre. However, the following scene shows Nate filming Ben whilst he's sleeping, a scene that's both subtle and far creepier in comparison. Had they just left in that scene, and omitted the former, it would've made for a great build of atmosphere.

Another example is Ben's death towards the end. As he's flying back towards Earth, finally free and able to see his family, rocks start to float around the cabin of his ship. They explode, revealing themselves to be the aliens that have been tormenting him ever since he landed. Now, if they'd have cut that scene there, it would've been a sufficient ending: perhaps still using the flashcard at the end of the film to tie in to what happened, but contextually, it would've made sense. Thing is, they carried out the scene for far longer than needed, which to me just felt like the director was fleshing out the runtime because he had run out of things to put in, or simply that he didn't have a solid concept for the ending of the film. 

All in all, Apollo 18 isn't the worst sci-fi film I've ever seen but I'm pretty confident that you could find something more thrilling to watch. It's a shame, really, because this film had a solid concept. In my experience, though, films often do have a solid concept but are never executed to the right standard. 

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
• Sunshine (2007)
• Gravity (2013)
• The Martian (2015)
• Life (2017)

Overall rating: 5/10

- K

Film Reviews: Still Got Bite [Dracula, 1958]

Dracula (1958)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed.

Is it niche? Is it new? Absolutely not. But it is iconic and, if you haven't seen Terence Fisher's Dracula (1958), then you are most certainly missing out.

Admittedly, whilst watching, I can tell that the set design and props have aged rather badly. That's through no fault of the film: after all, it was made in the late 50s. However, it did remove me from the atmosphere a little bit, seeing as characters would bang on doors that would consequently fold like paper. The costume design was also curious, in that some characters didn't match the era that the narrative was set in (somewhere in the mid-1800s). 

The thing that makes this film, the thing that elevates it to its current, legendary status, is undoubtedly the late Sir Christopher Lee. I cannot begin to explain how fantastic I found his performance in this film: his eyes, his demeanour, his movements were electrifying and intimidating, and what little dialogue he had was brilliantly sinister. Lee was made for this role, and it still translates to this day.

I must confess that I was surprised by how much I'd also enjoy the performances of the other actors. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Peter Cushing and Michael Gough, both of which featured prominently in my childhood, but I assumed would be overshadowed by Lee. Instead, I found their characters to be entertaining, albeit a tad overly dramatic at times. 

Their roles in the narrative are simplistic, the plot itself being a cookie-cutter version of any folklore; there is a great evil which must be vanquished at all costs. Despite the story's transparency, it remains iconic and pays homage nicely to the original source material. 

That being said, there are problems, and that's to be expected of a film that is now 60 years old and counting. For one, it makes no sense to me that Van Helsing would withhold information about Dracula to the Holmwoods: at that point in the narrative, he knew Lucy (played by Carol Marsh) had been bitten by Dracula and that he would probably come back, however refrains from explaining this (and the origins of how Jonathan Harker died) to the family, which may well have prevented her death or at the very least given them notice of her vampirism. 

It's also odd that a blood transfusion scene is included, considering its based in the 1800s. Back then, blood transfusion would have been rarely practised and shunned upon by medical establishments as something far too risky for a patient to endure. It was possible, yes, just not likely to occur in the time frame that it did. 

Nit-picking aside, my greatest disappointment with this film was genuinely that there wasn't enough screen time for Christopher Lee. The first scene we see of him with his fangs out, his eyes bloodshot, his mouth dripping with blood, will forever live on as one of the most recognisable yet frightening shots in cinema. 

When I finished the film and realised that he barely featured in it, with the exception of his encounter with Jonathan Harker at the start of the film, I was left unsatisfied and craving more. I'm aware there are sequels following the success of Dracula, but Lee stated in his autobiography that in the sequels he was given even less to work with, so far as to not having lines at all: though disappointing, and I'll assume frustrating for the actor, the films were still a commercial success. 

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, despite how much it has aged. It's considered one of the most iconic horrors in history and I can definitely see why. If you still haven't watched it, I'd tell you to, if only for the cultural significance it holds and to be witness to what I consider to be one of the best performances in a horror film to date.

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
• Blood Feast (1963)
• The Gorgon (1964)
• The Reptile (1966)
• Twins of Evil (1971)

Overall rating: 8/10

- K