Chapter One
Go Fish and the rise of a Lesbian Cinema
Copyright (c) 2002 Shannon Starr
'There is a queer sensibility. ... There is something that changes our lives when we do come out, when we do ... put ourselves in a position to be further oppressed. There is something that changes what you want to say.' - Rose Troche 1.
Made over two years, with a lot of community support but very little money, Go Fish (Rose Troche, 1994) was a success story in the tradition of Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1991) and Clerks (Kevin Smith, 1994), each made on a very low budget and going on to financial and critical success. More importantly, Go Fish presented a community of lesbians secure in their sexuality, unlike past films depicting lesbian lives. L. Henderson, in her article on the 'Lesbian community and Go Fish' states that, 'After years of sitting through films whose lesbian leads ended up dead, straight, or suffering ... lesbian audiences found deliverance in Go Fish'. 2
According to Christine Vachon, the film's executive producer - she, along with her co-executive producer Tom Kalin, was one of the leading figures in 'New Queer Cinema' - the market place was finally ready for a lesbian feature film like Go Fish. 'I think Go Fish was a landmark because it targeted, it specified an audience. Movies come along and they suddenly... target an audience that nobody had targeted before, and proves that that audience can... vote with their pocket book.' 3 As a result, not only did Go Fish succeed at Sundance, but its opening night in
It would be easy to assume that Go Fish came out of a vacuum. In 'Goings and Comings', B. Ruby Rich's article on Go Fish, she comments that, '[f]ilm critics, though, tend to live outside this subculture: to them, Go Fish must look as though it dropped, unique, out of the sky, instead of out of a community with a shared aesthetic voice.' 4 Rather than a vacuum, Go Fish sprang from a well established lesbian film culture, mainly based in lesbian clubs, bars and film festivals. According to Rich, 'Video clips are the entertainment staple of lesbian bars all over the
Women's clubs and workshops are the venues most likely to show the work of filmmakers like Su Friedrich, and in fact she 'actively prefers this type of outlet as a way of reaching lesbian audiences.' 6 Like many other lesbian filmmakers, Friedrich's films are avant-garde, although recently she has moved towards making narrative films. According to Liz Kotz in her article 'An Unrequited Desire for the Sublime', Friedrich's work 'offer[s] strategies for situating the lesbian subject within and against the narratives of the past, within and against the inherited materials of the dominant culture.' 7 Rather than adopting the established heterosexual codes of mainstream cinema, and merely inserting lesbian characters, Friedrich, along with many of her fellow lesbian filmmakers, has sought to create a lesbian style in the form, as well as the subject, of her films. This has not always lead to the wide spread success of her work, as was seen in the 1992 Toronto Film Festival, where her film First Comes Love (Su Friedrich, 1992) was less than warmly received. As a result, Friedrich was disregarded by Rich in her definition of 'New Queer Cinema'.
Barbara Hammer, with over fifty films to her name, has helped to define and develop independent lesbian cinema, despite being ignored by Rich in her narrow definition of 'New Queer Cinema'. Dina Ciraulo, in her article about Barbara Hammer, entitled 'Artistic Presence', states that:
'Paradoxically, recent years have seen the lauding of "independent film." While the attention may bode well for some, it is important to keep in mind that a particular model of independent film has emerged: feature length, narrative film with commercial potential. ... Short experimental work, the type that Barbara Hammer has been making for twenty-five years, rarely sees a profit.' 8
According to Kate Haug, who interviewed the filmmaker for Wide Angle in 1998, Barbara Hammer was the first lesbian to make a film portraying lesbian sexuality. To this statement, Hammer replied, 'I didn't know that when I was making [Dyketactics (1974)]. I didn't think, "Oh, I'm making the first lesbian love-making film".' 9 Like many other lesbian filmmakers, Hammer makes films closely tied to her own experiences as a woman, and as a lesbian. However, due to the fact that her films are avant-garde in style, they are not always popular with lesbian audiences. Hammer has said that, '[f]inding that the lesbian audience was just as conservative as a heterosexual one was a big blow to me, because I just thought that all lesbians were going to be curious, breaking rules, breaking norms, out on the fringe.' 10 Instead, most lesbian audiences today, like most mainstream audiences, expect linear films resembling that of
Like Hammer, Jan Oxenberg began making films in the 1970s. However, rather than the avant-garde tradition, Oxenberg has been identified as a narrative film maker, dealing with radical politics 11, and has been credited with 'drastically chang[ing] lesbian film history. With Home Movie [1972] and A Comedy in Six Unnatural Acts [1973], she proves that it was possible to reflect on the lesbian image in a self-conscious way'.12 Her film A Comedy in Six Unnatural Acts has also been credited by B. Ruby Rich as a forerunner to Go Fish, despite the fact that Troche and Turner have never seen the film. 'For me, Go Fish is the daughter of Comedy, the living proof that lesbian camp does exist and even has a lineage.' 13 However, despite the recent 'New Queer Cinema', Oxenberg has not worked extensively in lesbian cinema, writing instead for mainstream (and heterosexual) television programmes.
Despite the shortage of lesbian films, lesbian filmmakers are not always embraced by their community. Often this is due to formal considerations, such as in the case of Hammer and Friedrich. However, sometimes it is due to the representation of lesbians that filmmakers choose to put on screen. Monika Treut is one such filmmaker. According to Julia Knight, whose article on Treut was included in Tamsin Wilton's Immortal: Invisible, 'her films have frequently angered members of the lesbian and gay community, eliciting criticisms on a number of different fronts.' 14 Rather than fulfilling the formal expectations of audiences expecting to see a film in the
Like Treut, Sheila McLaughlin has also received fierce criticism for her film She Must Be Seeing Things (1988). When the film was first released, venues were picketed by some lesbian feminists and at one stage 'a group of non-violent, anti-porn radfems physically attacked two women organisers and a video machine' 16 at a showing of the film. Protesters objected to the perceived S&M content, as well as the fact that one of the characters masqueraded as a man, which some objected to on the grounds that it reinforced butch and femme stereotypes. McLaughlin sees these reactions as residual politics from the 1960s and 70s, when the lesbian community 'came into danger of becoming our own police and being extremely moralistic and judgmental about what one can and can't do as a "feminist".' 17 Rather than reinforcing cultural stereotypes in her film, McLaughlin claims that she was aiming to de-bunk them. 'Agatha dressing as a man masquerades as that which she is threatened by.... By representing herself in the image of the rival, she deflates it.' 18 Now that the controversy surrounding the film has abated, critics such as Teresa De Lauretis have come to see She Must Be Seeing Things as a landmark for lesbian cinema, both in its form and its content:
'She Must Be Seeing Things locates itself historically and politically in the contemporary North American lesbian community with its conflicting discourses, posing the question of desire and its representation from within the context of actual practices of both lesbianism and cinema.' 19
It is this challenge, to create a space for lesbian representation, both in form and subject, that Go Fish has inherited from its predecessors.
Despite the fact that these women are some of the leading voices in lesbian filmmaking, their work is difficult, if not impossible to come by, as they rarely receive any sort of distribution. This is due to three main factors. Their work is either on video which, as stated earlier, is not shown at most mainstream film festivals, and therefore can receive no industry attention. Secondly, much of the work done by these filmmakers are short films rather than features, which rarely get distribution save for those films that are 'tacked on to higher-budget feature work by men.'
According to Andrea Weiss, lesbian film in the last twenty years has been divided between two distinct styles: 'the narrative/documentary line allied to radical politics (out of Jan Oxenberg, Home Movie [
The narrative of Go Fish is ultimately that of a love story. Guinevere Turner, who co-wrote the script with Troche, plays Max West, a self-proclaimed 'carefree, single lesbo looking for love'. When her roommate Kia introduces her to Eli, Max is neither impressed by her fashion sense, nor by the fact that she is in a monogamous relationship with a woman who has lived in
While Go Fish is not overtly political, its lesbian narrative makes its political agenda clear. Rose Troche has said of her work, 'I believe I should deal with a subject I have a relationship with, and be able to make my art without taking a political vacation'.24 The women of Go Fish are part of a 'declarative lesbian universe' 25, where their sexuality is not in question, and they can count on the support of the like-minded lesbian community that surrounds them. This is in stark contrast to the figure of the isolated lesbian in mainstream films like Silkwood and Personal Best.
Along side the linear narrative, Troche has used avant-garde techniques to link the main scenes of the film. According to Rich, 'Rose Troche is a product of the Chicago avant-garde tradition and is proud to say that she wants her audience to know that what they are watching is a fiction.'26 She has therefore used her training to make Go Fish much more than a straight forward love story. In between the majority of the narrative scenes are a collection of shots, such as hands joining, fingers tapping impatiently or being wrung nervously, water running in reverse, milk being poured into coffee, spot lights being switched on and off, and a spinning top. These images evoke the mood of the scenes immediately preceding or following, such as Eli and Max's nervousness in the early stages of their relationship, or Daria's guilt of sleeping with a man. Hands are repeatedly used in these shots, in close-up, perhaps referencing the importance of hands for lesbians, both in terms of giving pleasure and showing emotion. According to
'Go Fish's textured and evocative visual and musical transitions also contribute to the film's lesbian identity. ... The images are tactile, ephemeral, and intimate, paying fond attention to the sentience of everyday life and homage to a tradition of feminist filmmaking'.27
Three significant voice-overs, spoken by Max, are also present during the film, including the 'wedding dress sequence'. Various women, including Max, are shown looking uncomfortable, wearing wedding dresses, while Max's voice-over speaks of her fear that, although she is not looking for a man, a man is waiting for her. This sequence, as well as others such as Daria's interrogation by a lesbian 'jury', are not part of the main narrative, but add to it by expressing the thoughts and fears of the characters in an unusual way.
Throughout the film the main characters, with the exception of Max and Eli, gather in a place described in the script of Go Fish as 'NON-SPACE - NON-TIME' 28. During these scenes, the women talk about the progression of Max and Eli's relationship, along with aspects of lesbian lifestyle. These scenes are not part of the linear narrative, but like the other non-linear sequences, these serve to comment upon the action and push the narrative forward. These avant-garde elements help to set Go Fish apart from others films of its kind.
By placing both traditions of lesbian cinema - political narrative and avant-garde - within a romantic comedy framework, Go Fish makes them much more accessible to its audience. All the elements of the romantic comedy are present - 'conflicted desire, romantic awkwardness, internal and external barriers blocking the path of true love, and a marked contrast in persona and sensibility'30 However, the film has not simply taken the typically heterosexual genre of romantic comedy and inserted lesbians into the story.
Troche has taken the conventions of the romantic comedy and changed it to fit the mould of a lesbian film. By filling the narrative with lesbian specific references, she has made certain that Go Fish plays to a lesbian audience, while its romantic comedy format prevents it from alienating mainstream audiences. Things like Max clipping Eli's nails on the first date again references the importance of hands for lesbians - something that a heterosexual audience may not necessarily pick up on. Other elements such as jokes about Eli's collection of teas, the inter-cutting of sex with food preparation and the sound of cats meowing are all references to, or in jokes about, lesbian lifestyles. According to Barbara Hammer, it is these elements that make Go Fish a lesbian film.
'They play more with the structure of the film so you have more of an opening up of possibilities and then you have the phenomenological experiences like a nail cutting scene which is lesbian specific. ... So those kinds of experiences that relate specifically to lesbians of course make for a different kind of narrativity.' 32
I would argue that one of the reasons for Go Fish's success is the fact that it is lesbian specific, while at the same time using a genre that is recognisable to and comfortable for both lesbian and mainstream audiences. Rather than alienating members of her audience by grounding the film in either the avant-garde or the political narrative, Troche has created a mixture of both within a film that can be enjoyed by a much wider audience, and in doing so has made Go Fish a landmark film.
There are a number of reasons why the time was right for Go Fish's success in 1994. It was, in part, due to the high profile of queer cinema since 1992. However, it was just as much due to the overall rise in popularity of independent cinema at the time. Films such as Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994), and Clerks were all made around the same time, and each had proven that independent films could make a lot of money. Advances in technology and reduced costs had made it possible for filmmakers with extremely low budgets to make high quality films. According to Chris Jones in his assessment of Go Fish,
'the time was right for the success of this film. Co-producer John Pierson was aware that what he calls 'the low-budget aesthetic' was very much in vogue in 1994 and the success of Claire of the Moon [Nicole Conn, 1992], despite very bad reviews, had made him conscious that the lesbian audience was very poorly provided for.' 33
An increasing number of film festivals have provided a forum in which independent films can be shown, and this has contributed to the success of these films. Festivals such as Sundance provide much needed industry attention, without which many independent filmmakers would have difficulty finding a distributor. In addition, lesbian and gay film festivals have appeared in major cities in the
An increase in the spending power of the lesbian community in the 1990s may also have contributed to Go Fish's success. In her article 'Commodity Lesbianism', Danae Clark explained that traditionally, lesbians were not targeted by advertisers because they were not perceived to be 'economically powerful'. However, during the 90s that would seem to have changed:
'lesbians as a group are beginning to raise their incomes and class standing ... Given the increasing affluence and visibility of one segment of the lesbian population - the predominantly white, predominantly childless, middle-class, educated lesbian with disposable income - it appears that advertisers are now interested in promoting "lesbian window advertising".' 35
It stands to reason that a lesbian community with increased spending power would not only be attractive to advertisers, but also to the film industry. A gap in the market had suddenly appeared and, in order to fill it, films like Go Fish were picked up for distribution, while studios and producers began to make their own films to appeal to the lesbian market.
As a result of Go Fish and its success, more films both by lesbian filmmakers and featuring lesbian characters are being made. According to Rich in 1994, '[i]f the papers are to be believed, there are already more than a dozen mainstream lesbian films in production or pre-production in Hollywood.' 36 In the few years following Go Fish, several films by male filmmakers, both in and outside
I would argue that it was the success of Go Fish in 1994, rather than Rich's 'New Queer Cinema' in 1992, that was the turning point for independent lesbian cinema, leading to a greater number of lesbian features being produced in the 1990s. By targeting the lesbian audience at the right time, Go Fish proved that audience was starved of images of themselves on screen, and that there was indeed a market for such films.
Footnotes:
1) Rose Troche, speaking in the documentary Zero Budget (Emma Hindley, 1996)
2) L. Henderson, 'Simple Pleasures: Lesbian Community and Go Fish', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 25. no. 1. (1999), p. 37.
3) Christine Vachon, speaking in Zero Budget
4) B. Ruby Rich, 'Goings and Comings', Sight and Sound, vol. 4. no. 7. (1994), p. 16.
5) Ibid. p. 16
6) Chris Jones, 'Lesbian and gay cinema', in Jill Holmes (ed.), An Introduction to Film Studies (2nd Edition), (
7) Liz Kotz, 'An Unrequited Desire for the Sublime: Looking at Lesbian Representation Across the Works of Abigail Child, Cecilia Dougherty, and Su Friedrich', in M. Gever, J. Greyson and P. Parmar (eds.), Queer Looks: Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Film and Video, (London & New York:Routledge, 1993) p. 99.
8) Dina Ciraulo, 'Artistic Presence', Wide Angle, vol. 20. no. 1. (1998), p. 96.
9) Kate Haug, 'An Interview with Barbara Hammer', Wide Angle, vol. 20. no. 1. (1998), p. 66.
10) Ibid. p. 77.
11) Oxenberg is given as an example of a politically motivated narrative film maker in Penny Florence, 'We are here but are we queer?: Lesbian Filmmaking versus Queer Cinema Conference,
12) From a review of Thank You and Goodnight (Jan Oxenberg, 1991) in PopcornQ, http://netscape.planetout.com/pno/popcornq/db/getfilm.html?523
13) B. Ruby Rich, 'Goings and Comings', Sight and Sound, vol. 4. no. 7. (1994), p. 15
14) Julia Knight, 'The Meaning of Treut?', in Tamsin Wilton (ed.), Immortal, Invisible: Lesbians and the Moving Image, (London & New York: Routledge, 1995) p. 36.
15) Ibid. p. 37.
16) Cherry Smyth, Lesbians Talk Queer Notions, (London: Scarlet Press, 1992) p. 39.
17) Alison Butler, 'She Must Be Seeing Things: An Interview With Sheila McLaughlin', in M. Gever, J. Greyson and P. Parmar (eds.), Queer Looks: Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Film and Video, (London & New York: Routledge, 1993) p. 369.
18) Ibid. p. 371.
19) Teresa De Lauretis, 'Guerrilla in the Midst: Women's Cinema in the 80s', Screen, vol. 31. no. 1. (1990), p. 25.
20) Liane Harris of Cinenova (a women's film distribution company) quoted in Cherry Smyth, 'Trash Femme Cocktail', Sight and Sound, vol. 2. no. 5. p. 39.
21) Kate Haug, 'An Interview with Barbara Hammer', Wide Angle, vol. 20. no. 1. (1998), p. 76.
22) Cited in Penny Florence, 'We are here but are we queer?: Lesbian Filmmaking versus Queer Cinema Conference,
23) L. Henderson, 'Simple Pleasures: Lesbian Community and Go Fish', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 25. no. 1. (1999), p. 40.
24) B. Ruby Rich, 'Goings and Comings', Sight and Sound, vol. 4. no. 7. (1994), p. 16.
25) L. Henderson, 'Simple Pleasures: Lesbian Community and Go Fish', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 25. no. 1. (1999), p. 40.
26) B. Ruby Rich, 'Goings and Comings', Sight and Sound, vol. 4. no. 7. (1994), p. 16.
27) L. Henderson, 'Simple Pleasures: Lesbian Community and Go Fish', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 25. no. 1. (1999), p. 53.
28) Guinevere Turner and Rose Troche, Go Fish: The Full Original Screenplay, (Woodstock & New York: Overlook Press, 1995) p. 70.
29) L. Henderson, 'Simple Pleasures: Lesbian Community and Go Fish', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 25. no. 1. (1999), p. 48.
30) Ibid. p. 45.
31) Ibid. p. 45.
32) Hammer, cited in Kate Haug, 'An Interview with Barbara Hammer', Wide Angle, vol. 20. no. 1. (1998), p. 71.
33) Chris Jones, 'Lesbian and gay cinema', in Jill Holmes (ed.), An Introduction to Film Studies (2nd Edition), (
34) Ibid. p. 311.
35) Danae Clark, 'Commodity Lesbianism', in Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale and David M Halperin (eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, (New York & London: Routledge, 1993) pp. 189-190.
36) B. Ruby Rich, 'Goings and Comings', Sight and Sound, vol. 4. no. 7. (1994), p. 16.
bravenet.com