As far as queer films go, this is just about as queer as it gets folks. Because not only is it definitely a part of “queer” cinema, it is “queer” in the sense of peculiar as well. It’ peculiarity stems principally from its subject matter, it broaches a topic that is particularly difficult to talk about: the sexuality of children. In day to day life, children are largely considered completely a-sexual. While the innocence of the young is not up for discussion here, it is also without a doubt that children do have sexual instincts and feelings, just not activated yet. And sometimes, these instincts manifest themselves, confusing everyone around and the child as well. So what does happen if you have a little one in the family that is “not quite like the rest”?
The Fabre family has just taken a very great leap. Mr. Fabre has just changed jobs, accepting a high ranking position in a company. This has allowed him and his family to move to an affluent suburb of Paris, a “nice” house with “nice” neighbors; it is an exciting time for everyone. The Fabres are a delightful couple with four lovely children as far as the neighbors are concerned. But there is, shall we say, a small quirk. Their youngest, and seven year-old son Ludovic, insists on dressing up as a girl. The family try and pay no heed to it at first, but when Ludovic shows interest in the neighbors son Jerôme, insists on taking his “Pam and Ben” dolls to the show and tell at school and explaining to everyone who will listen that his second x chromosome has been mislaid but that God will send him another one so he can become a girl and marry Jerôme, the neighbors start to give them funny looks. The Fabres now face a tough decision. Will they support their son in his quest for self-discovery or quash the quest for fear of what the neighbors will say?
Most of this film is absolutely brilliant. It gives a brilliant portrait of all the societal pressure placed on gay identities. Especially in the suburbs and similar small communities “what will the neighbors think?” is less of a rhetorical question and more a matter of life or death, especially if one of those neighbors just happen to be your boss. Parents love their children and want what is best for them, but how easy is it to accept that what you consider “best” for them may in fact not be best for them after all? Although these questions are posed and discussed in the harshest manner possible, the film then turns around and does something rather peculiar. It wraps up rather suddenly, throwing in a couple of huge coincidences and with a very, very ambiguous finale indeed. All I can think of as an explanation is that the director stopped and looked back at his work, lost courage, and without pursuing the story to its natural, and possibly grittier end, made it a bit easier to stomach for the general public. And the film – originally a Belgian film – won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film, so Alan Berliner, the director, seems to have gaged the public pulse right at least… However, with growing globalization and with more and more films and artists elbowing each other for their own five – or hopefully more – minutes of fame, this is precisely what we see. Less of a tendency to ask the really tough questions and more of a leaning towards “palatable” films; popularity is all after all; if not in the terms of ego a popular film guarantees funding and possibly fame and fortune. It’s really a shame about the end of Ma Vie En Rose, but the remaining two thirds are just so good that it is definitely worth your attention…
THE DAMAGE DONE BY HEADPHONES
4 yıl önce
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder