If there is one thing that Australians have going for them, it’s their stereotype as having incredibly good looks… Okay, while that may or may not be true, it seems that one concept Australians do believe in is marriage equality. I don’t want to give too much away, so take a look at this clip first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY
Surprised? The video is interesting in that throughout the entire clip the viewer has no idea whether the person, represented through a first-person view, is male or female. The form of the clip is set up to keep the individual guessing – if the ending isn’t revealed early, most people probably assume that the relationship is between a man and a woman. However, this isn’t the case, as it culminates in one man proposing to the other. This action, which may be shocking to some people, is meant to illuminate the fact that gay couples live lives and have relationships that are every bit as loving as those between straight couples. As the viewer doesn’t notice the differences throughout the clip, they realize at the end that straight and gay circumstances are the same – the only separation is that straight marriages are actually legal in all parts of the world.
The conflict comes from the belief that, for many, marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Many may be come under the assumption that marriage should be between man/woman, not man/man or woman/woman or any other combination or identity. Some may disregard the ability for gay couples to fall in love. Others may believe so because of religious reasons. Whatever the case, the video shows that regardless of who the “person behind the camera” really is, the two lead of a life of love and affection.
I’m going to return to the first-person view that the creators of the video used to convey their message. The first-person view could mean many things. It could just have been showing the life of the man. It could be a representative of another individual’s point of view, as most would assume. Or, it could assume to be the viewer’s point of view – as in, despite our gender or sexuality, we are the ones whom the man finally proposes to at the end. This form of using the first-person view allows anyone or anything to fit in its place. Not only could the possibilities of the individual behind the camera change, but so too could their relationship with the man. It could be different if the man was straight and a woman was behind the camera, or the man was transsexual and it was a woman behind the camera. The beauty of the clip is in its ability to represent any individual.
The clip differs, in the end, by never showing what exactly happens to the couple. With the understanding that it represents marriage equality, we are to assume that the relationship was between two men. However, are they able to get married? Or, are they unable to because it isn’t legal? Do they live happily ever after or end their engagement in a month? The video differs the true ending of the couple’s life – we see it only from its inception on the boat to its climax in the proposal.
Hopefully I was able to entertain everyone with the video! I think it’s really fantastic and hopeful. Let me know what you think!
I agree that the perspective is interesting. It implicates the viewer in (perhaps) an intimate way, forcing them to question their own gender and sexual identity. So, the actors *and* the viewers have to negotiate multiple positions on the gender continuum. Derrida would love this! I wonder what the clip does to binaristic categories of sex and gender, though. How and to what degree is the link between (white) maleness and (white) masculinity undermined *and* reinforced in this clip? Also, how does marriage (gay or straight, which is another binary) legitimate the same state power that queer subjects claim oppresses them? In other words, what are the less innocuous motives behind a state's decision to legitimate gay marriage? We get gay marriage, but at what price?
ReplyDeleteWow, I really loved this video! I think you're right that the first person view is what really makes it possible for the dramatic "surprise" at the end to have a great impact. Furthermore, I think that this form makes the viewer root for the couple more than if they were both shown (be it a male/female or male/male couple). I wonder if people who are adverse to gay marriage might find themselves drawn into the premise more due to the fact that all the viewer can see (and to some degree experience) is the love present within the relationship portrayed.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, though, what the ambiguity of the ending really entails. Could someone who doesn't feel that the two should be married make their own assumption that the couple will fail, because that is what they would desire for them? Could a person like that believe that they might have to fight harder to keep gay marriage illegal? It's really unfortunate that many people might think this way, but, in the end, it's really a powerful clip that, I think, does an excellent job in achieving its intended effect.
OK. Number one. As a filmmaker, I am obsessed with this clip. I have to first comment on the cinematic qualities of the work and how director chooses to place the narrator behind the camera, which you note and I completely think it worthy of pointing out. I like how you say “The beauty of the clip is in its ability to represent any individual”. I also see so much beauty in this clip. The fights, the love, it could be anyone there holding the camera and filming their lover. This shows that man/woman is one, but more than that is shows that also the world is one. By ending with the lover proposing our “unknown” person, who is then revealed to be a man, in front of friends and family, it shows that everyone is united in some way, regardless of sexual orientation. The “surprise”, the proposal and the reveal, is significant with friends and family there because the lines between man and woman are blurred because the people around them don’t seem to care. The “outside appearance” as we discussed in the first blog, doesn’t matter.
ReplyDeleteThis clip is so interesting!--and also so relevant to our class. What struck me most about the video relates to the comment you made about the individuality of the camera holder. As you said, the camera person's mysterious identity allows any sort of individual to be placed there, whether that individual is male, female, transgender, or anything else. Something else related to this that I found interesting was the identity of the person actually sitting at his or her computer and watching the clip. It seems that the viewer of the video would place his or her self into the camera person's position. For example, a straight woman watching the video might assume that the person behind the camera is female. A gay man, on the other hand, might assume the camera holder is a man. Viewers make assumptions about the identity of the camera holder based on their own individual preferences. This reminds me of the discussion we had in class about poststructuralism. In essence, the author is dead, and the viewer is the person who places meaning into the video clip.
ReplyDelete