Dallas Buyers Club: A Cis-Het White Savior's Wet Dream
.jpg)
Dallas Buyers Club (2013) directed by Jean-Marc Vallée is a film inspired by real life. It’s set in the mid-1980s and follows the life of a Texan man named Ron Woodroof after his diagnosis of AIDs. He’s informed by his doctors that he only has thirty days left to live. With the little time he has left, Woodroof seeks out any treatment he can get his hands on. With the help of a fellow AIDs patient, Rayon, Woodroof starts a buyer’s club to sell illegally imported drugs to other AIDS patients. This sensationalized and sometimes fictionalized recounting of Ron Woodroof tells his story as he battles his own raging bigotry, his AIDs diagnosis, and the government’s attempts to shut him down in the face of an epidemic.
I can’t say for sure what this film set out to do, as I’ve never sat
down and had a conversation with the creative minds behind it. All I have is my
interpretation of the film to go on, and what I left with when the credits started
rolling. Besides, it would be a waste of time to try and boil down any film to
intentions, conscious and subconscious, behind it. In his article “It’s Just a
Movie” Greg Smith says, “If you let go of the notion that the filmmaker is
trying to convey a message, then the activity of viewers is to interpret the
film according to their lives, their experiences, their tastes-not the
filmmakers. That activity is just as valid as the filmmaker’s. The meaning of a
movie does not lie solely within the film itself but in the interaction of the
film and the audience” (Smith 67) With that being said, what I have to go is my
interpretation, and how I feel this film does or doesn’t succeed in in my eyes.
I have my own analysis and beliefs, and it is my theory that more than
anything, this film sets out to take advantage of a time of pollical upheaval
for the LGBTQ+ community (the years leading up to the supreme court finally
giving queer people marriage equality) to generate Oscar buzz for a movie that
doesn’t really have much to say. It’s branded as a progressive movie that
“pushes the status quo” but doesn’t actually push anything new or
revolutionary. Instead, it’s a movie that centers around a white cis-gendered
heterosexual man as the big, great hero, while also maintaining harmful
stereotypes and tropes.
Right out of the gates, we see just how straight this film’s version of Ron Woodroof
is. The first scene begins with Woodroof right in the middle of a threesome with two women, while
he watches from the sidelines of a bull riding competition. Those images scream
hypermasculinity from an aggressively straight man. The audience's first
impression of Woodroof is that he is a raging bigot, which includes the three
staples of racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Nothing about this man screams
“sympathetic protagonist”, but many scenes aim to garner that sympathy. He’s,
for lack of a better word, a dick, but he’s a straight one, so that means that
his AIDs diagnosis is deserving of sympathy rather than mocked or ignored,
right? He’s not actually queer so he doesn’t deserve to be called a homophobic
slur, right? He’s a straight guy so he doesn’t deserve this death sentence,
right? (please note my sarcasm) Whether any of that was truly the intention of
the writers and director of this film can’t be said, but that’s certainly how
it comes across on screen. Woodroof is played as a womanizer who has sex with
women frequently and has pictures of naked women plastered on his wall.
Everything about him screams “I’m straight”.
He’s the hero in this story, though. He’s the guy who overcame his own hatred and illness to help a demographic that heavily includes queer people. This film centers on Woodroof as the cis-het white savior who fought against the government, while the minorities are reduced to background characters or plot devices simply meant to progress Woodroof’s character development. Henry A. Giroux writes, “While film plays an important role in placing particular ideologies and values into public conversation, it also provides a pedagogical space that opens up the “possibility of interpretation as intervention” (Giroux 588). Because film plays such a big part in the discussion of society and politics, it’s inevitable that this film sparked conversation. However, this begs the question: what does this film bring to the conversation? My honest answer: nothing new. Dallas Buyers Club isn’t doing anything groundbreaking. Instead, it’s commenting on a controversial topic of the time, claiming to be progressive while never actually doing anything to challenge harmful opinions and misconceptions that its audience may hold.
This movie also falls into the pitfalls of problematic casting and harmful tropes. First and foremost, the movie already isn't doing itself any favors by choosing to cast Jared Leto of all people. Few things have the capability of ruining a movie for me more than seeing Jared Leto of all people walk onto the screen. The movie also doesn’t help itself by having cast that man (I’ve already said his name too many times. I fear if I say it again he’ll pop up like Beetlejuice), a cis-gendered man as a trans woman. Many trans actors and trans activists have been saying for years that trans characters should be played by trans actors. Trans actors aren’t generally sought out to play cis roles, but cis people have on multiple occasions played trans roles. In cases such as Leto, they not only cast a cis person but also cast a member of the opposite sex to play said transgender characters. You wouldn’t usually cast a cis man to play a cis woman, or vice versa, so why would you do that with trans characters? Plus, cis people are not only taking the few roles trans actors are offered, but they’re generally ill-equipped to play them. Leto’s performance of Rayon heavily leans on the wardrobe and the makeup, while the heart of the character isn’t explored thoroughly at all. Until trans actors are given the platform to play cisgender roles, it is best that casting directors look towards transgender individuals to play transgender characters.
Rayon's character feels more like a caricature, rather than a fully fleshed-out character. In reality, Rayon was not a real person, unlike Ron Woodroof. She is, instead, a character device to simply further along the development of Woodroof. We see this as Rayon and Woodroof’s friendship pushes him to get past his homophobia. And when Rayon dies of AIDS, she isn’t even awarded a death scene. Her life and death in this movie were all about Woodroof. Not only does this play into the “bury your gays trope” but also the trope of making Rayon’s gender identity the most important thing about her, as if trans people aren’t also human beings whose lives, wants, and personalities extend beyond being trans. On top of that, throughout the film, Rayon is constantly misgendered. This is, of course, a reality that many transgender people or gender non-conforming folks experience all the time. However, this misgendering doesn’t come across as an attempt to be accurate to real. If that were the case, I feel like Woodroof’s character development should have concluded by using the correct pronouns for Rayon. But alas, even in death Rayon is still misgendered. Instead, it felt like the characters never actually saw Rayon as a woman. Because of that, how many people who watched this also share that way of thinking? It plays into the transphobic rhetoric that transgender individual’s gender is not valid. Trans people are valid. They always have been, and they always will be.
Dallas Buyers Club, despite whatever the intentions behind it may have actually been, does not cater to queer audiences. Instead, like many other “progressive” films in Hollywood that feature marginalized communities, the minorities are depicted as pitiful and helpless – that is until the selfless and compassionate white cis-het savior swoops in to save the day. I will give the film some praise in that it rightfully critiques the government’s awful response to the AIDS epidemic. However, the AIDS movement was led by queer people, and this film does little to acknowledge that fact. This film exists for straight people to watch and walk out of the theatre feeling satisfied and like they did something good for society (when, in fact, they haven't done anything). As a queer person watching this, I was only left with a bad taste in my mouth and the loss of two hours I’ll never get back.
Works Cited
Dallas Buyers
Club. Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, Focused Features, 2013.
Giroux, Henry A.
“Breaking into the Movies: Pedagogy and the Politics of Film.” JAC,
vol. 21, no. 3, 2001, pp. 583–598.
Smith, Greg M. “It's
Just a Movie": A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes.” Cinema
Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 64-71.
Hailey,
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely STUNNING post - I genuinely clapped multiple times while reading, because your points were just that wonderful. I really appreciated your analysis (and criticism) of Ron's character, particularly your point about his straightness making his AIDS diagnosis more sympathetic to the audience. Since he is a heterosexual person who was diagnosed with the disease, a lot of the moralizing about sexuality out of it (even though he acquired it via a sexual encounter). I also like how you pointed out that minorities are still represented as "pitiful and helpless" even though the film was seen/marketed as progressive. Overall, I really loved everything that you said! Thank you :-)
Izzy
As I was reading how you felt once the credits began to roll, I recognized it was very similar to my experience with the movie. I agree with your expressions on the film, I do not know what I fully can interpret from it but at the same time a lot happened that had me questioning the purpose of the film. The use of the term sympathetic protagonist brought to light what I could not understand while watching this film. Whether it was based on my personal experiences in life or beliefs, everything in the film about Ron Woodroof left me uncomfortable and unable to be sympathetic towards him. Did he improve as a person as the film continued? To an extent yes but does that fully forgive his earlier actions is what I struggle to interpret. I enjoyed reading your take on the film and sarcasm in your writing.
ReplyDeleteHailey, you bring up some interesting theories, especially about bringing a movie forth about a controversial topic just to get buzz. It honestly makes sense to get buzz if gay marriage being legal is a topic of discussion. You also bring up a really good point of Ron being a straight character needing sympathy for his disease. For gay people, they get no sympathy, but him being straight automatically puts him up further for getting that sympathy. I also agree that if creators include a trans character, there should be an intentional effort to use correct pronouns (or as you suggest, use wrong pronouns as a learning experience in correcting oneself). We can see Ron show he cares for Rayon, so him correcting his pronouns could be another step to make the film actually more progressive.
ReplyDelete