5 Lesbian Cinema Classics

5 Lesbian Cinema Classics

There are so many and so good movies that deal with love between women that it is practically impossible to choose only 5. That is why we have decided to apply the criterion of choosing those that, as a blockbuster, have had the ability to reach the public and contribute in an exceptional way to make lesbianism visible and standardize it. This has meant having to leave out great titles like "Aimée and Jaguar", "Bilitis" or "When night falls" that, surely, will have room in other compilations. A pleasure to remember these titles!

5 opinions about "5 Lesbian Cinema Classics"

  1. Honestly, for lesbian films like "La vida de Adèle" I prefer not to do any ... because a lot to say they "give visibility" and normalize but it seems that no one sees that we are really in the usual: relationships between women they become objects of masculine morbid and degrading scenes of tits and pussies before in anything else, and that is more a setback than a breakthrough.

    I'm a lesbian and I'm really sick of hearing so many crazy praises to this movie that is nothing more than the pornographic relief of the obsessions of a despot director. I went to see her very excited because the comic had enchanted me and I was hoping to find something equally good or maybe better, but I can not express my surprise at finding such a garbage ... Fifteen minutes of completely gratuitous and unjustified lesbian porn dirty the rest of the footage and act as a desperate call of attention (as well as call to collection, audience and criticism) to apologize for three unsubstantial hours, wasted and empty, which could have given of such a fantastic initial subject.

    The director only bothered to shoot scissors and cunnilingus, there is no trace of the depth of the graphic novel, its captivating aesthetic, its good taste, its sensitivity, its unfolding in terms of themes and motives ... just explicit sex, ridiculous poses and easy morón to drag the people to see it and turn it into vouyers.

    Without these long scenes of sex the film would have gained in dignity and strength, it is precisely counterproductive to its cause this excessive regodeo. Instead of these (or a large part of) scenes, one could have taken advantage of footage and included, for example, a scene of homophobic attack from those so sadly in force in France or other European countries, that would contribute to a greater awareness of the audience and not a scene like that of the scissors with which the film falls into ridicule, it disqualifies itself and gives the reason to those who affirm that it is pornography shown only for the purpose of exciting.

    What is the intention if not to gloat in such a way? If we do not see eight orgasms, do not we understand the passion between the two protagonists? Or the "need" to put these fifteen minutes of wild sex was because if no one would endure three hours soporific watching an actress with empanada face? Much more important and vital to the plot was the suppressed scene in the final editing of Adèle's parents throwing her out of the house when she was caught in bed with Emma, ​​who in the comic marks an important turning point in the life of the protagonist and so it should have been equally in the film to better understand his helplessness and loneliness. Why was it suppressed then? To give you more minutes to sex? It is incomprehensible.

    I wonder how it is possible that nobody (or very few) see what this film is really: a pornographic fantasy of a heterosexual director, based on an aprioristic judgment of how two lesbians fuck that is nothing more than their own desire put into images (and also tyrannically, in plan "you play until the exhaustion that I filmed while I drool").

    Had the two men been the protagonists (or a man and a woman), the director would never have recreated like this in a sexual scene between them and the film would not have been so brilliant for the critics. If the couple had been heterosexual and if sex, although realistic, had been treated more subtly, this film is not spoken. And much less rewards. But of course, heterosexual critics liked it a lot and that's why Cannes won ...

    That is why, what scales me of all this (apart from that I can not sympathize with a gentleman who has made his actresses feel less than abused ...) is that the director has reduced a complex story about love, friendship , intimacy ... in a very long sex scene made from the point of view of a male observer that reduces lesbians and women in general in hypersexualized objects whose sexual practices must be those that arouse the desires of the public.

    As always, it comes down to women (lesbians or not) to the same thing. Objects. Objects with which to sell, trade, excite ... masturbatory objects and little else.

    This film does not do the homosexual cause any favors, quite the contrary.

    If I extend myself so much and express myself with such vehemence it is because I want my point of view (which is that of many lesbians as well) to help understand why so much outrage justified with this film, that is why I insist on giving explanations of what I consider to be is a logical anger (which also feels the author of the comic) and not a pure hysteria "just because."

    I strongly recommend reading the original comic book so that anyone can check the difference for himself in all that I say: of course there is sex, in fact nobody denies the need for it, but it is treated in a completely different way: with good taste, sensitivity and respect. They are aesthetic and realistic scenes, not so easy, exaggerated and gross as in the film, where the masculine and almost onanist look is self-revealing.

    The author, Julie Maroh, also expressed her indignation about it. It should be pointed out that there is no question at any time about not showing sex in the film, in fact it is necessary and justified to be shown, but not so. The problem is not with explicit sex as long as it is justified and well presented. The problem is when you have decided to show a long sexual scene with the sole purpose of creating free and controversial morbid, then want to take the viewer as a fool, become naive and pretend to sell it as "art." That is outrageous. More than a sincere and realistic relationship between two women, it seems a rather topical (and even ridiculous by certain postures) pornographic fantasy of a heterosexual man.

    Be assured that if Kechiche had run "Brokeback Mountain" or a love story with two men as protagonists, not even a pussy would have recreated so much. It is because of this accumulation of circumstances that lesbians feel so offended: we are always reduced to the same, the same role of objects intended to give pleasure or morbidity to the audience ...

    It is curious that the greatest praise comes from just heterosexual men; women, straight or lesbian, make it worse and are much more critical. It will be perhaps because the sexual reification of women is something so entrenched in our society, in all areas, we have it so admitted that it is not allowed to turn it around when someone questions it (and then, if we do, we are hysterical , jocular or narrow-minded, as if we confused "open-minded" with "need to show explicit sex") and, as always, lesbians are made visible only for the attainment of male pleasure; is shown as sexual objects on the screen with the hypocritical excuse that it is necessary to see these pornographic scenes to understand the life of the protagonist.

    And so, Adèle's life is reduced to "The sexual life of Adèle". An easy, vulgar, pornographic film, with everything that could have given of itself (does not pay attention to the inner fight of the protagonist, to the conflicts with their parents and friends or the solution to them, the need for greater visibility and standardization, etc ...)

    I sincerely believe that Kechiche did not want to develop to the same extent and depth any other subject other than sexual, disguising such an exaggerated amount of pornographic scenes under three hours of "cinema" and "art." The director seems to only address a specific audience to praise his work. He could have made a real wonder, but he was blinded by the easiest, sexist and explicit resource. It is truly a pity.

    1. I totally agree with you. You could not have expressed better what I think. I am not a lesbian but because I am bisexual I feel totally attacked and outraged by these things. And instead despite we are advancing sometimes it gives me the feeling that of advancing for convenience and at the disposal of heterosexuality and not really because of us. But unfortunately we live in a patriarchal society and what I hate most falocentrista. So we will have to fight a lot more to get us respected and not just because of us. The right to love whoever we want without gender distinctions. We are all just like people.

  2. Many lesbians are very tired of hearing so much praise about this film, and our outrage is not a mere tantrum because it is but is fully justified by the hypocrisy of the machismo of this film. If someone wants to do porn, let them do it, but do not justify it by pretending that they defend something or someone and above all that they dare to call them by their name and not disguise them as something else. It is clear that heterosexual men love the lesbian theme and it attracts them a lot, but they see the duster a lot so that later they deny it with such hypocrisy ... What Kechiche has filmed is not art, it is simply pornography to channel their own fantasies and disguise them through three hours of "passion", "body philosophy" and "sensitivity", and if something bothers me especially in this life is that they try to sell me a fake motorcycle or that they want to make me commune with millstones.

    The picture of the guy who gets excited about seeing sex between two women is as old as the world, and "The Life of Adèle" does nothing but feed the fantasy that nourishes porn movies of a lifetime. I do not understand for what right this director has dared to use the lesbians through a film that is nothing more than a macho, exploited and morbid appropriation of their sexuality.

    At no point do I say that sex is in a movie or that it has to be covered. Sex can be explicit and necessary in a film, of course, but when it is shown as obviously morbid, degenerate (with respect to the comic) and vulgarized as here, yes, I have enough, because seeing a scissors of 10 minutes does not I think that I contribute nothing to the rest of the argument, neither to me nor to anyone, except mere excitement or morbo ... that is the outrageous thing, that in them the director is far from naive or aesthetic to have rolled them, but morbid. Our indignation (mine and many lesbians) lies in the fact that this director's look is quite hypocritical, because we want to sell some sexual scenes supposedly filmed with realism, beauty and sensitivity when what we see is pure pornographic recreation for commercial purposes . The lesbian sex sells, and that the director knew it and for that reason it has exploded it, for that reason all the justifications of these scenes seem to us stories and quite perverse deceiving. I think a lot of guys have seen the movie just looking for the porn scenes, whats more, those scenes are already inserted unfortunately in many porn sites of internet ...

    Without these scenes, which as you say you have left over, the film would have gained strength and would have moved away from a controversy that was not beneficial at all. Sex in movies often acts as a morbid claim in itself that is disconnected from the story in which it is inserted. Of course, the film we are dealing with is a clear example of this effect.
    The regrettable thing is that the director and the critics alabadores are so cynical and hypocritical to make pass this determining element of the film like a beautiful complement and not like a morbid, and, therefore, commercial claim.

    It has taken us a long time for lesbians to be respected (and still cost us daily) so that we have to be exposed in this way and be seen only to promote the erotic myth against the mostly male audience, which also results from very bad taste and very frustrating, because we feel that it is as if in exposing our disgust they rebuke us: "Above we visualize you and in an artistic way, you complain when you should applaud, you are hysterical and some Puritan! It is almost like when women are forced to thank that compliment they receive on the street without having asked for it. I honestly believe that the day we see penises on the screen as often as we see pussies and boobs we can start talking about equality ... and until you see a movie of this same director who recreates for ten minutes in two gay men practicing a "Justified" and "beautiful" anal sex will continue to think that Kechiche is a vulgar onanista and has only sought to capture his own fantasy. But I do not think that having starred in his film two men would have recreated like that, nor would have been awarded in Cannes. For all this, both this film and its intentions seem disgusting to me, and I pity Julie Maroh, the author, who has seen his work so disgustingly vulgarized.

↑ ↓ Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *