Why did this story need a lesbian? I am sick of Hollywood shoving alternative (deviant) lifestyles down the American publics' throat. It is not the norm (less than 1% of population) so why is it appearing in films all over the place.....? Next thing you know we will be dealing with people involved with beastiality!
share
She was no lesbian. Obviously her sexuality was messed up because of
her father's abuse.
Obviously, she just wasn't picky. And I think she was supposed to be "confused." Campbell seems to be drawn to these kinds of roles, maybe they're fascinating to her as an actress. But did I miss something about her dad being abusive? (I take it you meant her dad in the film, not her real life dad.)
shareIt's left ambiguous as to whether or not she was actually bi-sexual (it's suggested that she is so psychologically damaged that she is looking for an emotional connection with ANYONE, and using sexuality to try to find it).
Regardless, her lifestyle is depicted as so reckless and unhealthy that it can hardly be seen as a ringing endorsement.
The point is contrast. As others mention, the effect is that Alex is this very straight-laced, suburban type who happens to kill people. He lives in a nice, tidy house with his family and he's not really satisfied with it somehow. As the movie goes on, we find that everything has sort of been laid out for him. His father set him up to be in the family business at a very young age and predicated his fatherly approval on his learning that trade. Alex never asserts himself outside of that pre-ordained role.
Along comes Sarah, who is utterly unorganized. We don't know that she has any particular goals and we don't get the impression anyone has given her any guidance. She isn't really straight-laced in any conventional sense. I think her fling with Tracy is emblematic of that. She doesn't know if she's gay and she doesn't care. She saw an opportunity to seduce Tracy, so she took it. Obviously, it's kind of ignorant to associate bisexuality with disorganization or confusion, but I think the scene as a whole works.
Anyway, that's the contrast. We don't really see Alex step out from under his father's shadow until the very end and we never really know what shape shadow Sarah casts.
BTW, I watched the DVD partway through with the commentary on and the writer/director doesn't have anything to say about characters' sexuality in the Sarah and Tracy scene. I think he just wanted to emphasize that Sarah isn't looking to define herself or her life. I get the impression he is only using it to show that she isn't cut in stone, not to make some political statement about sexuality.
Also, in the deleted scenes, the Sarah and Tracy scene is a little longer and, in it, Sarah kisses Tracy and Tracy, apparently a little surprised, asks if Sarah's gay. Sarah is nonchalant. She says she doesn't think so because she "sucked Billy Marshall's *bleep* the other night and that was fun." Maybe the OP would have found that scene less objectionable, though it does involve shoving something down someone's throat. I assume the scene we saw was edited to be more suitable for voice-over narration. At any rate, the scene ends the same way, with the two fillies headed "off to the races".
IMO, the scene the OP complains about is really too short to be worth much fuss. It's not like people are having to explain it to their five-year-old kids. And, Neve Campbell using that last expression to her shrink with her Canadian accent was sorta cute. I'll let that scene be the sig for this post.
<SARAH (Neve Campbell) talks to her psychologist (Tina Lifford)>
SARAH: I like pussy. Alright? Is there anything wrong with that?
DR. LEAVITT: No.
SARAH: Then why are you staring at me like I kill people for a living?
DR. LEAVITT: I'm listening, Sarah. I'm just listening.
SARAH: Seems more like disapproving, to me.
DR. LEAVITT: What if I were to tell you I was gay?
SARAH: <surprised> You are?
DR. LEAVITT: You take my point.
SARAH: Right. So, anyway, we had some wine.
DR. LEAVITT: Where?
SARAH: At my place, on the couch.
<scene switched to show SARAH and TRACY on the couch>
SARAH: And, the next thing I know, I've got this idea that I could seduce her. I mean, why not, right? No big deal. Like I said, I've slept with girls before.
DR. LEAVITT: So, what did you do with Tracy?
SARAH: I just kinda leaned over and kissed her. She kinda liked it because, the next thing I knew, she's got her tongue down my throat. And she's moaning and stuff, you know, making a lot of noise. And, we're off to the races.
- Panic
brokow^
VERY good analysis.
Well-done!
:)
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Same with movies. A very small percentage of films are about or even have gay characters in them so your logic fails.
Panic - 10/10
Footloose - 8/10
OP has a rather odd (not to mention bigoted) point of view.
Are movies only supposed to show us the statistical norm?
I can step out my front door and see that any time I want.
And oh, by the way.... it's way more than 1%.
By your reasoning, we'd better keep all those black people out of the movies too.
www.brucekahn.net
Be there or be.... not there.
Shoving down your throat? First of all, it was a very small part of the movie; second of all, your statistics are a joke; third of all, if you are that much of a homophobe or bigot, don't watch independent film, just stick to action and adventure, OK? Your comment is beyond pointless.
IMHO
coprogirl
"'Scuse me while I whip this out"
Blazing Saddles
Typical agenda by you know who.
share