I have recently started getting involved with a feminist group, something I have been intending to do for a couple of years.
Part of why I have wanted to get involved is that I have found feminist thought on a number of issues (gender roles, women and the medical profession and reproduction) very useful in helping me explore and come to terms with certain aspects of TS.
As I have discussed in my previous post there are serious issues around the way doctors deal with women with TS. The medical profession is still, like many professions, dominated by men. While I have experience of several female GPs, I have had very limited experience (if any) of being treated by female consultants. I discussed in an earlier blog entry the effect that my treatment by male consultants has had on how I view myself as a woman, and how consultants project a view of what is feminine onto girls and women with TS. Feminists have been the one group who have examined the way the medical profession has treated women and how it is an inherently patriarchal profession (as most are!)
I know of one group of TS friends who have enjoyed an excellent relationship with a female gynaecologist over several years. However this is the exception rather than the rule.
One of the issues ‘second wave’ feminists looked at was the way women are treated in the medical profession. They were concerned to ensure that women got information about how their bodies work and how to take charge of their health. This was exemplified by the Boston women’s health book collective’s collating and publishing ‘Our bodies, ourselves’ in 1973. This had an important role in helping women reclaim some balance in their relationships with the medical profession and gave them the confidence to question doctors. It also helped women to discern that they could find information for themselves and disseminate it to others with the same health issues. Most importantly it helped women perceive that they had ownership of their bodies and could have ownership of any health issues they may have. I find that I gain as much if not more medical information from my friends with TS as I do from health professionals. We also share our experiences of our treatment by particular health professionals. This is directly builds on the practices developed by the Boston Women’s health book collective back in the 1970’s.
I have been involved in a couple of ‘speak outs’ at a couple of TS conferences about my life with TS. The ‘Speak out’ was a technique of awareness raising developed by second wave feminists, which has been used around issues such as abortion.
My friends from the local TS group may not be aware of it but every time we meet up we practice the key second wave feminist practice of ‘Consciousness raising’ This is the practice of women coming together to share their experiences of particular issues such as relationships, work , etc. By coming together in ‘consciousness raising’ groups in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s and sharing their experiences, the women involved with these groups were able to discern common patterns of how they were treated as women, and that experiences that they thought were unique to themselves were actually shared by large numbers of women. They were able to build on what had been shared in these groups to for feminist theory on issues such as rape (Susan Brownmiller’s ‘Against our will’) and housework and gender roles in the home (Ann Oakley’s ‘Housewife’). Through our conversations my friends and myself have been able to see that we share specific experiences we thought were unique, particularly in the work place (many of us have been bullied), relationships with men (specifically how potential partners deal with our infertility) and with our families. This has allowed us to become stronger as individuals as we realise that we are not alone and to support each other as we can share coping strategies.
Feminism has also challenged the idea that a woman is only truly fulfilled though motherhood. By fighting for women’s reproductive rights, feminists have helped women claim sex as something that is important in and of itself, and not just part of the reproductive process (I will discuss the specific implications of this further in a later post).
By fighting for women’s educational and employment rights feminists have enabled many women to find validation which does not involve becoming a mother. This has allowed women with TS opportunities to contribute to society that they would not have had even 50 years ago.
Feminists have been at the forefront of looking at issues of gender. I attended a highly useful event in April this year looking at different feminist theories of gender. There is a transcript at http://www.troubleandstrife.org/?page_id=527. I came away from this event feeling enormously heartened. The last few years have seen the rise of ‘Queer’ theory of gender which argues for a multiplicity of genders. To this end, Turners Syndrome (along with some other chromosome conditions) has been incorrectly described as an ‘intersex condition’ by some ‘Queer’ gender theorists. Not only does this display a complete misunderstanding of TS as a condition, it is also profoundly damaging to women with TS, whose sense of themselves as women has already been undermined by the way we have been treated. Radical feminist thought argues that gender roles are something that should be transcended and that social conditioning plays as large a part as biology in how we become ‘male’ or female’. Therefore just because women with TS are infertile, this does nor rob the of their womanhood.
Certainly there are some tensions. There are feminist groups which oppose the selling of eggs (which is clearly something which many women with TS would support as there is a significant shortage in egg donors in this country). There are also feminists who have concerns around IVF generally and who distrust the use of HRT.
However, I am grateful every day for the feminist movement.
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Sunday, 19 September 2010
35. I like Mike (White) p. 3- Chuck and Buck
As I said in post 33 I went to see the Film ‘Chuck and Buck’ three times in the space of two weeks when it came out in UK in November 2000. I vividly recall thinking even as I was watching the film for the first time that this was going to be a film that was going to be very important in my life.
The film follows the events following the reunion of two childhood friends Charlie (Chuck) Sitter (played by Chris Weitz who would go on to direct ‘The Golden Compass’ and ‘New Moon’) and Buck O’ Brien (Mike White) at the funeral of Buck mother. The two men were best friends when they were eleven, although they have not met in many years and are now twenty seven. Charlie moved to Los Angeles and became a successful record company executive, with a fiancé called Carlyn. However Buck still acts as though he were eleven, playing with toys and sucking lollipops. Something transpires at the funeral that sends Charlie running back to Los Angeles and hints that something amiss happened between them when they were children.
Buck is undeterred and follows Charlie to Los Angeles. He turns up at Charlie’s work unannounced, phones his house at all hours and spies on him. Some of the critics of the film feel uneasy with its portrayal of stalking. Ironically many some of these critics wanted the story to resolve violently. Rather, the film shows the emotional distress and disruption that stalking causes to its victims and explores the social inadequacies and isolation of those who stalk.
Buck eventually decides to write a play about his childhood relationship with Charlie which he persuades a children’s theatre across the road from Charlie’s work to stage. He gets Beverley (Lupe Ontiveros) who works at the theatre to direct the play for $25 an hour. While at first there are elements of exploitation in the relationship, Beverley becomes fond of Buck and eventually becomes a valuable friend. She is able to comfort him when he finally relinquishes his attachment to Charlie and able to confide in him about her own insecurities. Through Beverley Buck finds a role in the adult world through helping out at the theatre. He in turn has given Beverley a chance to escape her mundane job in the box office and show her talents as a director.
Ontiveros gives a truly excellent performance- showing what a criminally misused actress she is. Before she acted in this film she had played the role of a maid in around 150-200 films/TV programmes including the Goonies and ‘As good as it gets’. Ontiveros said recently at the tenth anniversary screening I refer to below that she accepted the role without reading the script for no other reason than it was not a stereotypical Latina role (http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/08/chuck-and-buck-turns-10.php). In this article she also tells how Mike White called her in tears after she won an award for best supporting actress at the National Board of Review Awards in 2001, delighted she had finally got some recognition
Arteta also made unconventional choices for two other roles. He got his Wesleyan University classmate and friend Paul Weitz to play would be actor Sam and Paul’s brother Chris to play Charlie. Both had just finished making ‘American Pie’ which would make their names. Paul gives a wonderful comic performance as Sam, getting to deliver some highly politically incorrect lines. Some commentators have noted that Sam seems to be stuck in late adolescence the same way Buck is stuck in late childhood. In spite of his obvious lack of ability he decides to pursue a career in acting (reckoning it is better than laying carpet). He is highly misogynistic, making crude comments about Beverley behind her back in response to her more sophisticated put downs. He has also driven a female neighbour away with his behaviour. We find out in a deleted scene that he has driven his girlfriend to join a cult and has had issues with substance abuse. However, in spite of this he turns out to be more mature in his dealings with Buck than Charlie. After Buck gropes him, Sam immediately challenges him. There is even a note of self reproach that he has misread the situation. When Buck apologies for this pass, Sam accepts the apology after making it clear that he doesn’t want to sleep with him, but does not reject him. Carter Soles in his essay for E-jump cut (http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc49.2007/CarterSoles/.html) explores the possibility that Sam himself is latently gay. In particular he explores Sam’s ‘smiling and scoping’ Buck twice, once when they first talk and in their conversation before Buck attends Charlie’s wedding.
Buck may be a ‘man child’ but he is no Forrest Gump. His behaviour is not endearing and innocent but profoundly awkward, annoying and self-centred. Buck suffers from a child’s lack of self awareness and awareness of the feelings of others around them. His situation reminds us that what we usually carry with us from childhood is not a sense of innocence and wonder but a sense of unease and powerlessness about the situations we find ourselves in and a fear of being unloved and deserted by those we care about.
Mike White’s performance has recently been nominated by Jeff Bridges as his performance as his favourite of the last decade. Even viewers who have not particularly enjoyed the film have acclaimed his performance.
Some have interpreted the film as being homophobic because the gay character (Buck) is emotionally immature and does not behave in a manner befitting his age. However it is when Buck finally learns how to negotiate the tricky waters of adult sexuality and accept the pain and complexities that brings that he starts to mature (see my discussion on the ‘deal’ below). Some negative comments about the film argue that Buck is portrayed as a sexual predator. However the situation is shown to be considerably more complex than that.
Some viewers also have issues with the fact that Buck is not in a relationship at the end of the film. Some commentators interpret the moment at the end of the film where a man talks to Buck at Charlies’ wedding as Buck getting ‘cruised’. Mike White made an interesting comment in an interview with Michael Martin at nerve.com in 2007 http://www.nerve.com/content/qa-mike-white when asked if Buck has given up on the idea of a gay relationship
‘Well, I think Buck could be on the verge of one’ He then adds
‘ I don't think of them as any sadder than anyone else. Buck is certainly more . . . something than everyone else, but I think of him as happy too. He has his little world. He's lonely, I guess, but no more lonely than Chuck in his marriage’.
The eventual resolution of the situation between Buck and Charlie has caused a considerable amount of debate/controversy, particularly on IMDB/Amazon for a number of reasons. Some find it improbable that having spent most of the film trying to avoid Buck, Charlie would agree to sleep with him. Others argue Charlie is a repressed homosexual. Viewers tend to project their own expectations and anxieties onto Charlie. Some comments argue that in his own way Charlie has as many problems as Buck (as Mike White’s comment hints).
I have only come across one excellent essay about the film by Michael Sicinski on his website http://academichack.net/ (* http://academichack.net/chuckbuck.htm) that puts forward the most obvious and simple explanation - that Charlie is bisexual and that this neither invalidates his commitment to Carlyn or his past with Buck (Sicinski also makes a very thoughtful argument for how Buck’s embracing of his sexuality is part of his becoming a mature adult)
I think it is important to consider the true nature of what Charlie and Buck’s ‘deal’ is. It is not that Buck will leave Charlie alone in return for spending the night with him. In the scene where Buck puts the deal he firstly explains to an angry Charlie how much the intensity of their childhood relationship meant to him (It was just me and you, all this other stuff makes me feel dead). Charlie’s expression changes from anger to tenderness. Buck then puts ‘the deal’ to Charlie. But while Charlie initially looks taken aback he is not appalled and is considering what Buck is offering. When Buck sees Charlie’s concern he says makes it clear it is ‘just one night’ he is asking for. Buck then says ‘And then, I don’t know, you’ll never hear from me again’. Charlie then smiles at Buck, indicating agreement. What I understand this moment to mean is that Buck is offering Charlie a more long term relationship if that turns out to be what he wants but he cannot ignore both his and Buck’s shared past and his own (highly repressed) desire to return to their relationship. Buck in effect offers Charlie a safe space with boundaries (just one night) and a legitimate excuse (of leaving him alone) in order to do this so that it will not disrupt his current life and relationship.
Once the boundary is in place Charlie can freely acknowledge to Buck that their past relationship happened and that it had a profound meaning for him (yeah, I remember you, I remember everything), and re-enact it. However he explains to Buck afterwards before leaving him that ‘You need to grow up’ (prompting Buck’s retort of ‘Like you?’ to which Charlie responds ‘I’m trying- you know- acknowledging that he also finds the world a difficult place to navigate) and makes clear ‘There’s someone else in my life now’. As he says goodbye his tone of voice and face express gratitude and tenderness. While Buck is heartbroken (there’s no love left for me- not anymore!), he accepts the situation and begins to move on with his life.
On the audio commentary on the scene where Buck returns to his room and looks at the collages of his parents, Mike White points out that Buck realises that it is his parents who he actually misses, not Charlie. He also comments your parents are ‘the first people who break your heart’. Miguel Arteta, the film’s director describes this scene being about forgiving those who hurt you.
For me the true ending of the film comes when Buck and Charlie see each other some months later in the restaurant. Buck is with his friends from the theatre and Charlie is with Carlyn. They see each other. Buck looks at Charlie sorrowfully but with acceptance. He is the one to break eye contact. Charlie continues to look at Buck for some moments afterwards with unguarded tenderness and pride (to the point that Carlyn has to look at him in a questioning manner).
Arteta decided to film using digital photography. As well as greatly reducing the cost of making the film, this allowed him to tell the story with a deeper level of intimacy. In an interview with Res magazine in 2000 Arteta described how filming with two light digital cameras allowed both for longer takes and closer shots.
Both Chris Weitz and Mike White would garner considerable acclaim when they wrote films about immature thirtysomething men forced to grow up when they become parent figures to mature eleven years olds (‘About a boy’ and ‘School of Rock’ respectively).
Maybe a large part of why this film resonates with me is that Buck and Charlie’s lives are eternally affected by events that happened to them when they were eleven. I often feel in spite of all I have achieved as an adult that part of me is still that eleven year old girl. I certainly feel some of those around me (including close family and lifelong friends) have difficulties accepting quite how responsible and mature I actually am.
There was a recent event in Los Angeles which Miguel Arteta, Mike White, Lupe Ontiveros, the Weitz brothers and Matthew Greenfield (the films’ producer) attended http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/08/chuck-and-buck-turns-10.php. I find it very moving that in spite of all that each of the individuals involved has achieved since, they valued the experience so much that they all came to this event.
The film follows the events following the reunion of two childhood friends Charlie (Chuck) Sitter (played by Chris Weitz who would go on to direct ‘The Golden Compass’ and ‘New Moon’) and Buck O’ Brien (Mike White) at the funeral of Buck mother. The two men were best friends when they were eleven, although they have not met in many years and are now twenty seven. Charlie moved to Los Angeles and became a successful record company executive, with a fiancé called Carlyn. However Buck still acts as though he were eleven, playing with toys and sucking lollipops. Something transpires at the funeral that sends Charlie running back to Los Angeles and hints that something amiss happened between them when they were children.
Buck is undeterred and follows Charlie to Los Angeles. He turns up at Charlie’s work unannounced, phones his house at all hours and spies on him. Some of the critics of the film feel uneasy with its portrayal of stalking. Ironically many some of these critics wanted the story to resolve violently. Rather, the film shows the emotional distress and disruption that stalking causes to its victims and explores the social inadequacies and isolation of those who stalk.
Buck eventually decides to write a play about his childhood relationship with Charlie which he persuades a children’s theatre across the road from Charlie’s work to stage. He gets Beverley (Lupe Ontiveros) who works at the theatre to direct the play for $25 an hour. While at first there are elements of exploitation in the relationship, Beverley becomes fond of Buck and eventually becomes a valuable friend. She is able to comfort him when he finally relinquishes his attachment to Charlie and able to confide in him about her own insecurities. Through Beverley Buck finds a role in the adult world through helping out at the theatre. He in turn has given Beverley a chance to escape her mundane job in the box office and show her talents as a director.
Ontiveros gives a truly excellent performance- showing what a criminally misused actress she is. Before she acted in this film she had played the role of a maid in around 150-200 films/TV programmes including the Goonies and ‘As good as it gets’. Ontiveros said recently at the tenth anniversary screening I refer to below that she accepted the role without reading the script for no other reason than it was not a stereotypical Latina role (http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/08/chuck-and-buck-turns-10.php). In this article she also tells how Mike White called her in tears after she won an award for best supporting actress at the National Board of Review Awards in 2001, delighted she had finally got some recognition
Arteta also made unconventional choices for two other roles. He got his Wesleyan University classmate and friend Paul Weitz to play would be actor Sam and Paul’s brother Chris to play Charlie. Both had just finished making ‘American Pie’ which would make their names. Paul gives a wonderful comic performance as Sam, getting to deliver some highly politically incorrect lines. Some commentators have noted that Sam seems to be stuck in late adolescence the same way Buck is stuck in late childhood. In spite of his obvious lack of ability he decides to pursue a career in acting (reckoning it is better than laying carpet). He is highly misogynistic, making crude comments about Beverley behind her back in response to her more sophisticated put downs. He has also driven a female neighbour away with his behaviour. We find out in a deleted scene that he has driven his girlfriend to join a cult and has had issues with substance abuse. However, in spite of this he turns out to be more mature in his dealings with Buck than Charlie. After Buck gropes him, Sam immediately challenges him. There is even a note of self reproach that he has misread the situation. When Buck apologies for this pass, Sam accepts the apology after making it clear that he doesn’t want to sleep with him, but does not reject him. Carter Soles in his essay for E-jump cut (http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc49.2007/CarterSoles/.html) explores the possibility that Sam himself is latently gay. In particular he explores Sam’s ‘smiling and scoping’ Buck twice, once when they first talk and in their conversation before Buck attends Charlie’s wedding.
Buck may be a ‘man child’ but he is no Forrest Gump. His behaviour is not endearing and innocent but profoundly awkward, annoying and self-centred. Buck suffers from a child’s lack of self awareness and awareness of the feelings of others around them. His situation reminds us that what we usually carry with us from childhood is not a sense of innocence and wonder but a sense of unease and powerlessness about the situations we find ourselves in and a fear of being unloved and deserted by those we care about.
Mike White’s performance has recently been nominated by Jeff Bridges as his performance as his favourite of the last decade. Even viewers who have not particularly enjoyed the film have acclaimed his performance.
Some have interpreted the film as being homophobic because the gay character (Buck) is emotionally immature and does not behave in a manner befitting his age. However it is when Buck finally learns how to negotiate the tricky waters of adult sexuality and accept the pain and complexities that brings that he starts to mature (see my discussion on the ‘deal’ below). Some negative comments about the film argue that Buck is portrayed as a sexual predator. However the situation is shown to be considerably more complex than that.
Some viewers also have issues with the fact that Buck is not in a relationship at the end of the film. Some commentators interpret the moment at the end of the film where a man talks to Buck at Charlies’ wedding as Buck getting ‘cruised’. Mike White made an interesting comment in an interview with Michael Martin at nerve.com in 2007 http://www.nerve.com/content/qa-mike-white when asked if Buck has given up on the idea of a gay relationship
‘Well, I think Buck could be on the verge of one’ He then adds
‘ I don't think of them as any sadder than anyone else. Buck is certainly more . . . something than everyone else, but I think of him as happy too. He has his little world. He's lonely, I guess, but no more lonely than Chuck in his marriage’.
The eventual resolution of the situation between Buck and Charlie has caused a considerable amount of debate/controversy, particularly on IMDB/Amazon for a number of reasons. Some find it improbable that having spent most of the film trying to avoid Buck, Charlie would agree to sleep with him. Others argue Charlie is a repressed homosexual. Viewers tend to project their own expectations and anxieties onto Charlie. Some comments argue that in his own way Charlie has as many problems as Buck (as Mike White’s comment hints).
I have only come across one excellent essay about the film by Michael Sicinski on his website http://academichack.net/ (* http://academichack.net/chuckbuck.htm) that puts forward the most obvious and simple explanation - that Charlie is bisexual and that this neither invalidates his commitment to Carlyn or his past with Buck (Sicinski also makes a very thoughtful argument for how Buck’s embracing of his sexuality is part of his becoming a mature adult)
I think it is important to consider the true nature of what Charlie and Buck’s ‘deal’ is. It is not that Buck will leave Charlie alone in return for spending the night with him. In the scene where Buck puts the deal he firstly explains to an angry Charlie how much the intensity of their childhood relationship meant to him (It was just me and you, all this other stuff makes me feel dead). Charlie’s expression changes from anger to tenderness. Buck then puts ‘the deal’ to Charlie. But while Charlie initially looks taken aback he is not appalled and is considering what Buck is offering. When Buck sees Charlie’s concern he says makes it clear it is ‘just one night’ he is asking for. Buck then says ‘And then, I don’t know, you’ll never hear from me again’. Charlie then smiles at Buck, indicating agreement. What I understand this moment to mean is that Buck is offering Charlie a more long term relationship if that turns out to be what he wants but he cannot ignore both his and Buck’s shared past and his own (highly repressed) desire to return to their relationship. Buck in effect offers Charlie a safe space with boundaries (just one night) and a legitimate excuse (of leaving him alone) in order to do this so that it will not disrupt his current life and relationship.
Once the boundary is in place Charlie can freely acknowledge to Buck that their past relationship happened and that it had a profound meaning for him (yeah, I remember you, I remember everything), and re-enact it. However he explains to Buck afterwards before leaving him that ‘You need to grow up’ (prompting Buck’s retort of ‘Like you?’ to which Charlie responds ‘I’m trying- you know- acknowledging that he also finds the world a difficult place to navigate) and makes clear ‘There’s someone else in my life now’. As he says goodbye his tone of voice and face express gratitude and tenderness. While Buck is heartbroken (there’s no love left for me- not anymore!), he accepts the situation and begins to move on with his life.
On the audio commentary on the scene where Buck returns to his room and looks at the collages of his parents, Mike White points out that Buck realises that it is his parents who he actually misses, not Charlie. He also comments your parents are ‘the first people who break your heart’. Miguel Arteta, the film’s director describes this scene being about forgiving those who hurt you.
For me the true ending of the film comes when Buck and Charlie see each other some months later in the restaurant. Buck is with his friends from the theatre and Charlie is with Carlyn. They see each other. Buck looks at Charlie sorrowfully but with acceptance. He is the one to break eye contact. Charlie continues to look at Buck for some moments afterwards with unguarded tenderness and pride (to the point that Carlyn has to look at him in a questioning manner).
Arteta decided to film using digital photography. As well as greatly reducing the cost of making the film, this allowed him to tell the story with a deeper level of intimacy. In an interview with Res magazine in 2000 Arteta described how filming with two light digital cameras allowed both for longer takes and closer shots.
Both Chris Weitz and Mike White would garner considerable acclaim when they wrote films about immature thirtysomething men forced to grow up when they become parent figures to mature eleven years olds (‘About a boy’ and ‘School of Rock’ respectively).
Maybe a large part of why this film resonates with me is that Buck and Charlie’s lives are eternally affected by events that happened to them when they were eleven. I often feel in spite of all I have achieved as an adult that part of me is still that eleven year old girl. I certainly feel some of those around me (including close family and lifelong friends) have difficulties accepting quite how responsible and mature I actually am.
There was a recent event in Los Angeles which Miguel Arteta, Mike White, Lupe Ontiveros, the Weitz brothers and Matthew Greenfield (the films’ producer) attended http://www.ifc.com/news/2010/08/chuck-and-buck-turns-10.php. I find it very moving that in spite of all that each of the individuals involved has achieved since, they valued the experience so much that they all came to this event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)