Alexa Reid, 20019701 February 13th, 2020

On Tuesday February 4th, 2020,  I attended an 84 minute documentary titled UNSETTLED: Seeking Refuge in America at the Screening Room for Reelout Film Festival – and let me tell you, it definitely did not disappoint! This documentary followed the experiences of four people – Subhi, Junior, Mari & Cheyenne – who have sought refuge or asylum in the United States as a result of the extreme forms of discrimation, harassment, violence, and threats they were subjected to while residing in their home countries. It is apparent that they all escaped their home country due to the sexism held by their countries government, citizens, and their own families. Despite these similarities in their home country, they all received different treatment by state services and the people that they crossed paths with in terms of accessibility to resources, opportunities, and relationships throughout their attempt to seek official (state accepted) asylum or refuge. While watching this documentary and individually analyzing the stories told by Subhi, Junior, Mari & Cheyenne, it’s clear that their class, gender, and sexuality all played important and interconnected roles in determining the outcome of their situations and experiences. Throughout this blog post, I will analyze class, gender, and sexualiy in terms of Subhi and Junior. 

So, despite all coming to the United States for the same reasons, why are all of their experiences different? In general terms, an answer to this question can be explained as the American society is constructed and operated in a sense that values profit over human need (Lorde 114), and this value is highly visible for people attempting to seek official asylum or refuge. This question  can also be answered by looking at the identities of each individual in this documentary through an intersectional lens. 

The first person who will be analyzed is Subhi, a self identified gay man from Syria who has sought refuge in the United States. As political and social conflicts rose in Syria due to the ongoing conflicts and civil war, Islamic terrorists and opposition groups with very heteronormative views on sexuality and gender began to establish power within the country and his community. Although Subhi did not publicly self-identify as gay until he was in Turkey, he was still targetted by extreme threats because he did not fit within the heteronormative constructed binary of  “normal”. A threat mentioned by Subhi that is particularly unforgetting relates to killing him because of his sexuality and to make his blood Halal so it can be recognized as an honour crime. Due to the extremity of these threats and a genuine fear for survival, Subhi was in contact with a refugee-sponsor for months prior to actually seeking refuge in the United States. While in the United States, Subhi was approached by the United Nations to testify for crimes committed against LGBTQ+ people in Syria, later developing into an advocate for LGBTQ+ issues and rights. Although Subhi describes hardships that he endured while seeking refuge, I recognize his experiences within the United States as positive in comparison to the others in this documentary. Subhi is an educated middle-class gay man who conforms with the states view of an ideal neoliberal citizen because he is able to contribute to the nations portrayal as “accepting” and “progressive”, ultimately allowing him to “pass through the door”  because he is mostly accepted by members of society and state institutions (Ahmed 119).

The second person who will be analyzed is Junior, a self-identified gender non-conforming gay man from Congo. Junior describes Congo as a place that believes gay people do not exist because of the prejudice and sexism upheld by heteropatriarchal values and familial structures. Junior was particularly affected by these values because he grew up in a very Christian and conservative family. His mother was a pastor, and refused to accept Junior for his sexual and gender identity, and made comments that she – in addition to other community members – wished that Junior was dead. In comparison to Subhi, Junior experiences a lot of difficulties and faces many barriers to receiving adequate housing and mental health services, and treatment by state services and people.  In terms of gender expression, I believe one reason Junior was treated differently is because he did not adhere to socially constructed norms and binaries of “feminine” and “masculine”, and because “heteronormativity functions as a form of public comfort” (Ahmed 123) causing certain people to be hostile and discomforted by a gay man who is gender non-conforming. Throughout the documentary, these difficulties are apparent through having to change housing every month and being sexually taken advantage of by men because of Junior’s vulnerable situation. Junior expressed feelings of depression, PTSD, and a fear for safety in the United States – feelings that are all too common for gender non-conforming individuals in a heteronormative society. 

Although the content and the way stories are told in documentaries are specifically chosen to receive popular and positive responses, I admire how raw and vulnerable the people sharing their life stories are in this documentary. In comparison to popular culture, this documentary does not have to conform to socially constructed gender roles or to heteronormative sexual identities – roles that are too often at the forefront of Hollywood films and work to uphold false stereotypes and binaries of gender and sexuality  (Brandt 117). Overall, UNSETTLED: Seeking Refuge in America was a very emotional and powerful documentary.I shared tears and laughs with fellow audience members as Subhi, Junior, Mari & Cheyenne told stories of the extreme hardships they experienced in their home countries, as well as the new hardships they experienced in the United States. It is clear that seeking refuge or asylum in the United States has allowed them to all feel more welcomed and safer in expressing their own sexual and gender identities, but it does not come without challenges – challenges that are unique to each person, and are dependent upon various factors such as their gender, sexuality, and class. Hopefully you get to watch this documentary so that you can also experience the emotional roller coaster these four brave people have, and continue to, endure!

Word Count: 1011

  Works Cited

Ahmed, Sara. 2017. “Being in Question” Pp. 11-134 in Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Duke University Press.

Brandt, Jenn. 2014. “’As Seen on TV‘: Gender, Television, and Popular Culture.” Pp. 103-120 in Gender and Pop Culture: A Text Reader, edited by Adrienne Trier-Bieniek.

Lorde, Audre. 1984. “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference.” Pp. 114-123 in Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.

Taylor Habraken, 20166197

Professor Habibe Burcu Baba

GNDS 125

13 February 2020

For this critical film review project, I saw, “Good Kisser” written and directed by Wendy Jo Carlton. In this 80-minute film, Jenna, who is an innocent and shy lesbian, agrees but is skeptical to share her girlfriend, Kate, a mischievous and malevolent person, with another woman, Mia for a weekend trip to spice their love life up. Throughout the film, Jenna is constantly having second thoughts, while Kate is unwittingly becoming jealous of every ounce of attention her girlfriend gives Mia, even though it was her idea to share each other. Once the couple arrives at their new friend’s house, all suspension is broke loose, and the audience immediately feels anticipation. As the night progresses, the heat and tension start to kick up and the secrets and thoughts of the experimental love triangle start to be uncovered.

In a turn of events, the writer decides to throw in a bit of “queerbaiting” with Jenna and Mia. Jo Carlton made us believe that Jenna and Mia would hit it off and become romantically invested in each other, however, that did not happen. The definition that Bea Mitchell from Pink News uses to describe “queerbaiting” is writers who “set up the gay romance, hint at it constantly, make it believable and deep and perfect, and then force it out of the story” (Mitchell, 2018). Throughout the film, Jo Carlton constantly hints at the fact that Jenna and Mia will become closer. For example, Jo Carlton has Jenna show her true colors by engaging in sexual flirtations with Mia, making the audience anticipated and eager, however, never following through with them, which is an example of queerbaiting.

Furthermore, the intersectionality that was within this film consisted of, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and much more. Concerning the plot of the film, the major overlapping of intersectionality was sexual orientation and sex. This film was based on a lesbian couple who wanted to include another woman into their sex life. With that being said, the intersectionality is their sex being female and their sexual orientation being lesbian. According to Peter Kaufman, writer of “Intersectionality for Beginners”, he says that “Intersectionality shines a light on this complexity and challenges us to look beyond stereotypes, prejudices, and taken for granted assumptions” (Kaufman, 2018). However, looking at Good Kisser from a negative critique, the film highlights the stereotypes of lesbians. For example, the film shows an exact stereotype that all lesbians want to have a threesome with their girlfriend and a friend, and that is exactly what Jo Carlton made the main plot of the film out to be. Jo Carlton went behind Kaufman’s idea of intersectionality and did precisely the opposite.

On the other hand, on the note of a positive critique, Jo Carlton challenges the stereotype that one of the partners in the relationship has to dress and act like the man to mirror a heterosexual relationship. To illustrate, both partners in the film dressed how females would normally dress, and neither one of them dressed nor acted like a man. To give an example, Jenna wore a skirt, and Mia wore a blouse, which are both examples of feminine apparel. To further benefit my explanation, all the characters in this film showed an example of femininity which “may include having long hair, wearing various forms of clothing that restrict movement such as tight skirts and dresses, long, figure covering garments, being submissive, nurturant, softly-spoken and docile” (OnQ, Module 4: Week 6: Gender Representations: Femininities). All in all, the film displayed a stereotype, but also opposed another stereotype.

In my opinion, this film took me out of my comfort zone and expanded my horizons on the LQBTQ community. A negative critique of this film that I may add was the graphical content that they showed. During one scene, I felt very uncomfortable and uneasy, due to how illustrated the scene was, I will not get into the details too much, but I even noticed that a man and a woman had to leave halfway through the scene. I felt surprised because I was not expecting them to show such a graphic scene. However, Jo Carlton added some nonchalant jokes throughout the film that made up for the striking scenes. To illustrate, one joke that made me laugh was when Jenna burnt her hand by lighting a candle and told her girlfriend that she was sorry because it was her “good hand”. Some innocent minds may not understand this joke, but certainly, most of the audience at the festival with me understood it. To make the joke even better, her girlfriend reassured her that it was okay because she is ambidextrous, which made the audience laugh even more. In my opinion, Jo Carlton could have not made the film so graphical so that the audience would not feel the same way I felt. However, on a positive note, Jo Carlton did a great job of keeping the audience on their toes and keeping them intrigued on what was going to happen next. Throughout the film, there was always something new and unexpected happening, the film was very unpredictable, which not a lot of films can say they have.

To summarize, Jo Carlton portrays various positive and negative critiques in her film. On the negative side, she exhibits stereotypes of lesbians and the relationship of a lesbian, and she shows graphical content that makes it difficult for some viewers to watch. On the positive side, she does a great job at incorporating intersectionality by basing the film off of a white lesbian couple, she also incorporates some terms that we have discussed throughout the semester, such as, queerbaiting, and femininity, which were both essential in the creation of the film. In addition, she was able to create an unpredictable film, which most writers and directors are not able to do, which makes her writing and directing technique stand out amongst others. To conclude, my review of this film is that it was an educational and interesting experience for me, it was certainly eye-opening to see a relationship from a different perspective that I am not usually accustomed to.

(1020 words)

References

Baba Burcu, Habibe. “Glossary Definitions.” OnQ, 2020

Kaufman, Peter. “Intersectionality for Beginners.” Everyday Sociology Blog, 2018

Mitchell, Bea. “Queerbaiting: What is it and why is it a problem?” Pink News, 2018