The Award-Winning Aimee & Jaguar (1999)

Conclusion

Copyright (c) 2002 Shannon Starr

'In terms of whether I'm committed to lesbian/ gay characters in film - yes I'm definitely very committed.  I'm committed to making very personal films, and that's part of my personal experience and my life.' - Alex Sichel. 1

Lesbian cinema has come a long way since the days of the Production Code.  Lesbian audiences are no longer in a position of having to read between the lines of Hollywood narratives to find images of themselves, hidden in the shadows.  Nor are these images restricted to demonised characters - the vampires, psychotics and isolated figures of the past.  The cinema that has emerged recently is one that reflects a much wider cross-section of the 'lesbian community', for the most part avoiding the stereotypes of past films, and offering lesbian audiences greater variety of representation.  Furthermore, representations of lesbian communities are becoming more common, in stark contrast to the image of the isolated lesbian in pre-1990s cinema.

However it must be remembered that only certain types of lesbian independent films are receiving both critical and industry attention, as well as financial success.  These films are 'feature length, narrative film with commercial potential.'2  As was stated earlier, avant-garde, short films and videos are still mainly confined to specialist film festivals and women's clubs, greatly restricting their audiences, and as a result they rarely make a profit.   The reason for this is that the majority of audiences, both lesbian and mainstream, expect independent films to resemble Hollywood cinema in terms of production.  With no perceived widespread market for avant-garde films, they receive little or no distribution.

Prior to 1994, the majority of lesbian films, made specifically by lesbian filmmakers for a lesbian audience, were experimental, shorts or videos, both due to lack of funding and artistic choice.  However in 1994, with the arrival of Go Fish, that changed.  Rose Troche proved that lesbian filmmakers could represent their community with feature length, narrative films that appealed to both lesbian and mainstream audiences.  While the film was made in a way that resembles tradition Hollywood narrative, it also attempted to balance that with a lesbian specificity which included avant-garde techniques and references to lesbian experience.  Most importantly, Go Fish broke the narrative conventions of the time, setting itself in an environment where its characters are out and are secure in their sexuality.

Go Fish's greatest contribution was in establishing the existence of a lesbian market.  By proving to the industry that lesbian features could make money, other filmmakers were able to capitalise on Go Fish's success.  Filmmakers such as Alex Sichel, Sharon Pollack, Maria Maggenti and Lisa Cholodenko have each benefited from funding and distribution which otherwise may not have been available.  Because of this, the number of lesbian films being produced has continued to grow throughout the 90s and into the millennium, shown not only in gay and lesbian film festivals, but also in mainstream festivals, art house cinemas, as well as being widely available on video and DVD.  This widespread distribution of lesbian film is as a direct result, I would argue, of Go Fish's success in 1994. 

Each of the lesbian films which have emerged in the 1990s has tried to create a unique space in which the lesbian community can be reflected.  However, they have done so within a structure reminiscent of mainstream, Hollywood (and heterosexual) cinema.  This has led to a wider audience being exposed to lesbian images on screen.  However, it has also blurred the lines between lesbian images and heterosexual representations of lesbian lives.  This has led to lesbian filmmakers like Barbara Hammer to criticise these films for being 'lesbian heterosexual'3, and adding nothing new to the concept of a lesbian cinema.  However, I would argue that using mainstream conventions within lesbian films is a valid way to open these films up to a wide audience.  What lesbian filmmakers need to do is to find the balance between these conventions, while grounding their work within lesbian specific environments and experiences - something which I believe films such as Go Fish and All Over Me have succeeded in doing.  Writer and critic Susie Bright has argued for this type of cinema saying, 'I don't have a problem with a "gay movie" that straight people can understand, but must that be incompatible with something we can respect?' 4  The majority of recent lesbian films have done this, appealing to the mainstream, but still remaining faithful to its primary, lesbian audience, by providing them with recognisable and undiluted images of a lesbian community.

As I argued in chapter three, perhaps the greatest achievement for recent lesbian cinema is in its appropriation of the traditionally male gaze.  Some lesbian filmmakers have attempted to change the gaze, to make it female and lesbian, rather than male and heterosexual, by using avant-garde techniques, camera angles, lighting, and playing with the concept of woman as both possessor and object of the 'look'.  With the gaze mediated by lesbian directors and cinematographers, lesbian audiences have been given a cinema that is truly their own.

I do not believe that the 'New Queer Cinema' proposed by B. Ruby Rich in 1992 was the great turning point it was proclaimed to be for lesbian cinema.  Rather it was Go Fish, released two years later, which was to mark the beginning of a new lesbian cinematic movement that created a space in which lesbian audiences could find their lives reflected in a way not previously seen.  With their film, Rose Troche and Guinevere Turner hoped to reflect their own community in Chicago, and create a cinema they had longed for.  What they created was a landmark film that led to the production and distribution of dozens of films, created by and for lesbians, finally bringing them out of the shadows of invisibility and Hollywood stereotypes.

Footnotes:
1) Alex Sichel, speaking in Zero Budget.

2) Dina Ciraulo,  'Artistic Presence',  Wide Angle,  vol. 20. no. 1. (1998),  p. 96.

3) Hammer, in Kate Haug, 'An Interview with Barbara Hammer', Wide Angle, vol. 20. no. 1. (1998), p. 71

4) Susie Bright, 'If These Walls Could Talk 2',  PopcornQ, http://www.planetout.com/pno/popcornq/db/getfilm.html>?54545

Filmography