I'm in awe at how much people find gender bending films to be "confusing" and "too abstract". I also don't see what is low quality about it. Heterosexual people don't ever define what they mean, or provide an intelligent critique (the ones who could are probably the ones staying quiet because they don't want to talk too much in a gay arena of thought). I'd listen to it, I have some critique but my critique becomes irrelevant in the face of heterosocial hatred, and overall I find it very enjoyable of film. Maybe you have to be familiar with gay life to follow it (in which case, Straight people, why are you watching it? Why does it matter to you?); or perhaps it secretly appeals to some Straight people, provoking a strong reaction due to their heteroshame.
I thought the film was pretty straightforward; it was detailing a spiritual journey of the cowboy, ex-cowboy. He encounters many different kinds of people, some hateful and some radically compassionate ... that's what your life experience is when you're Gay or even a bisexual pursuing a Gay path (since that's what this movie is). I hardly think the plot is abstract at all. Maybe Straight people just think the idea of experiencing so much Hatred with some radically contrasting experiences from a minority, is bizarre. But it's our life. It illustrated what it was meant to illustrate.
So yes, if we review a gay film off of heterosocial standards of film (as the film establishment is sinfully Heterosocial; how many movies can you name without a monagamous heterosexual romance of SOME kind? Even children's films contain it when it is totally irrelevant to include most of the time...). Then yes it is a failure. Both the world of film and film critique just operate on heterosocial structures. But from a homosocial standard, this film is not the biggest of all successes but it is still a success.
But I hardly think it is especially abstract or hard to follow. And what's wrong with things being abstract, or harder to follow? To me, that is a good thing; I love experimental art. If you're in territory that seems esoteric to you, that's a sign that you are where you should be if you want to raise your consciousness. Why do so many people cling so strongly to their Stupidity?
I thought the film was pretty straightforward; it was detailing a spiritual journey of the cowboy, ex-cowboy. He encounters many different kinds of people, some hateful and some radically compassionate ... that's what your life experience is when you're Gay or even a bisexual pursuing a Gay path (since that's what this movie is). I hardly think the plot is abstract at all. Maybe Straight people just think the idea of experiencing so much Hatred with some radically contrasting experiences from a minority, is bizarre. But it's our life. It illustrated what it was meant to illustrate.
So yes, if we review a gay film off of heterosocial standards of film (as the film establishment is sinfully Heterosocial; how many movies can you name without a monagamous heterosexual romance of SOME kind? Even children's films contain it when it is totally irrelevant to include most of the time...). Then yes it is a failure. Both the world of film and film critique just operate on heterosocial structures. But from a homosocial standard, this film is not the biggest of all successes but it is still a success.
But I hardly think it is especially abstract or hard to follow. And what's wrong with things being abstract, or harder to follow? To me, that is a good thing; I love experimental art. If you're in territory that seems esoteric to you, that's a sign that you are where you should be if you want to raise your consciousness. Why do so many people cling so strongly to their Stupidity?