counter-review: go fish

my illustrious colleague, emily2, has successfully captured how go fish appears in some ways. but i must firmly state my own opinions on it, partially because i disagree strongly with the conclusions she draws.

first, let's be fair to the film go fish: it was made when "lesbian film" meant, roughly, "thelma & louise". in other words, OMIGOD THEY HAVE TEH SEX! and they even are, like, lesbians!

second, as she observed, that time period was not pretty for anyone. if you were around when that film came out, you know what i'm talking about. sure, the main characters aren't hotties, although perhaps i'm fond of a certain bi-leaning slut.

ms troche and co. were interested in presenting the dyke community in which they lived, and things weren't so happy for lesbians back then as they are now. over the last, say, 20 years, things have changed very significantly for queers, and the outness of those characters practically guaranteed their marginalisation. it is fair to say that it seems a very weak film, over-intellectual and pretentious.

but it was an indie, mostly made at film school, back when "indie" meant no one saw your film and it didn't play in but a dozen theatres nationwide.

today, we have the luxury of being "normal" people: you know, listen to top-40, be employed, have families, adopt children, be treated with respect, even have non-exploitative roles in film. at our old house, we had a poster for go fish on our walls for years because we remembered that film with great fondness: how it represented us in a positive light, how it showed two women dating, how it had real people in it, people who weren't angelina jolie. real people.

i viewed go fish again recently. some of its moments are hokey, or seem ridiculous: the drama about one character's bisexuality, the artificial queer-theory speeches, the awkward settings. but there was also that scene that reverberated with me from when i saw it as a youth: when one character, during a moment of sexual tension and blushing flirtatiousness, clips her crush's nails. and i appreciated how much their crowded, dyke-drama, and messy homes resembled my own and how my friends lived - as opposed to, say, the lives of most of the l-word characters, who are the wealthy, enfranchised women of appalling beauty. i mean, fuck: i'm head over heels for pretty much all of them.

but they aren't the dykes i know. i know grouters and tile-setters, students, professors-in-training, account managers, school teachers and barristas. a lot of barristas, actually. and some lawyers and doctors. i don't know anyone in the dyke jet-set crowd, and while i follow the stories of the rich and fabulous LA crowd, don't forget that we didn't get to appreciate shane's comparatively impoverished existence when she had like nine roomies crowded into a four-bedroom. when our tv friends are shown in the morning light, you can see the professional makeup artists have been at work. no one has bad hair days, ugly fashion, or breakouts. that's because it's our vision of the television world, and it's not what go fish cared about.

i guess what i'm saying is that while emily2, i don't disagree with your assessment per se, to dismiss seminal works like go fish because the actors are ugly and the film is outdated seems cruel. there are a lot of people who live like that, even today. being an outsider may be eclipsible for some of us, but not for all of us, particularly those of us who don't or can't pass as beautiful and wealthy women. go fish may be an artefact of its time but it's also a nice counterpoint to the artificial plasticity to the obscenely perfect filmic vision of west hollywood that the l-word shows.

anyway, i just had to say something.

oh, and as for d.e.b.s.? fabulous. loved it. and so romantic...