Inside Amy Schumer

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/kv1kvn/inside-amy-schumer-last-f--kable-day-season-3-ep-301#time=1m36s&index=2

View from 16:00 to 20:00

Comedy Central’s hit sketch series Inside Amy Schumer, features sarcastic social commentaries that often revolve around sexuality and gender roles. In this particular clip from the premier of season 3, Schumer (mock) interviews Bailey Jay, a trans porn actress. Through the piece, Schumer draws attention to all the ways in which trans people are subjected to both rude and invasive questions that often objectify or dehumanize their status as actual people.  In turn, Jay answers every question as though they are completely acceptable, laughing with Schumer about the bluntness of the questions, rather than correcting them.

Almost immediately, Schumer exclaims “You have a cock!” which sets the tone for the piece. As many trans people can confirm, the general (cisgender) society has an obsession with trans genitals. Further, Schumer brings up how it must have been difficult for Jay’s husband, a straight man, to have a relationship with a trans woman: “What was it like for you to sort of watch your husband enter this situation . . . I’m assuming he was just straight before.” This question reflects on the straight male fear of trans women, that trans women are trying to “trick” them, and the belief that a trans status conflicts with heterosexuality. However, something the piece does not address is Jay’s career as a porn star. Contrasting many segments where an interviewer will introduce their subject to the audience, Schumer very selectively omits Jay’s profession, her awards, etc. This omission further refines the aforementioned statement of fact, driving it away from any even remotely possible scenario in which talking about genitals is close to polite.

Schumer continues the interview with almost sarcastically asking Jay to answer every question that she hates answering. Jay responds with a lack of emotion, “I pee sitting down. I don’t use the men’s room.” Continuing with her purposefully ignorant interview, Schumer remarks on how gorgeous Jay is, giving nod to her ‘overcoming her trans status.’ But at the climax of the piece, we’re given the most awfully blunt question that could be asked: “Did you ever think about… snipping… off… your… [Jay laughs] penis?” Before she is given time to respond though, Schumer interrupts her and draws attention to herself, demonstrating how trans genitals exist as part of a public discourse rather than as a private matter.

This piece is complicated. On the one hand, it could be seen as a satire to the way that trans people, especially trans women, are usually addressed in interviews. It can be argued that the piece is satire because Jay was obviously prepared for all these questions and willing to bluntly answer them. In other interviews with trans women, such as Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, and Carmen Carrera, the interviewer has asked direct questions about genitalia but the women refused to answer and explained why such questions were problematic and offensive. In this way, the piece could also be considered somewhat educational as cis people can finally hear what they obviously want to hear. Additionally, Jay says that her life is not the sad trans life that often depicted in films, thus promoting a much needed positive trans experience.

On the other hand, the fact that the interview are very intrusive could be seen as an extension of the status quo. In some ways it supports the belief that the personal lives of transgender people should be open to the public. Talk of genitals and attractiveness furthers the sensationalization of trans women’s lives in ways that may not be productive.

According to Alexander Doty, queer is “a militant sense of difference that views the erotically ‘marginal’ as both . . . a consciously chosen ‘site of resistance’ and a ‘location of radical openness and possibility’” (There’s Something Queer Here, 430). He also describes a queer gender as “not fully subscribing to the straight ideological imperatives that define gender” (432). With this definition the interview can be read as queer in three different ways. First, to interview someone about being trans is to openly resist heteronormative narratives. To be trans is to break the prescribed path of sex = gender. Further, to be a trans porn star is to publicly embrace one’s erotic marginalization.  In another sense, it is even queering the trans interview style, which usually is done in a very serious manner that depicts the hardships of being trans. However, it could also be argued that the piece is not queer at all in that it continues to publicize and sensationalize trans lives.

Questions:

1. Is the interview queer or is it promoting the status quo? What aspect of the interview contributes to its queerness or lack thereof? Whose definition of queer would you draw on?

2. Is the interview satirical, educational, offensive, or some combination? How do the lack of questions about Bailey Jay's porn career but rather questions about her lifestyle contribute to your opinion? How might the audience's opinion on the interview differ upon a queer or non-queer viewing?

3. Do you think cis society would benefit from more interviews done in this style or is a more serious style better?

What differences are possibly present between various interviewers' styles that limit what an audience can learn about a trans* individual?   Can you think of any related interviews with a separate interview style?  

Rihanna's Sexuality

Rihanna’s “Te Amo” music video presents the artist’s sexuality in a new way, highlighting the potential for a lesbian relationship and her struggle with that realization. Rihanna typically tackles sexual themes in nearly all of her music videos and stands as a sexual symbol herself. In “Te Amo,” an attractive, feminine woman expresses her love for Rihanna, and Rihanna experiences and considers the pleasures and pains that a queer love can bring, and she struggles to take a stance regarding her own identity.

We defined the video as queer using multiple definitions. According to Warner, queer protests norms and the idea of normal behavior (xxvii). Any homosexual relationship accomplishes this version of queer. According to Doty, individuals who find pleasure in texts that don’t match their own sexual orientation can also mark a work as queer (6). We believe that a straight-identified audience could also take pleasure in the visualization of a sexual relationship between two hyper-feminized women.

Another aspect of the film is the portrayal of BDSM. BDSM seems to be a common theme in Rihanna’s videos, however it remains a practice that goes against commonly accepted sexual norms. Society tends to associate BDSM with nonconsensual sex, but Rihanna shows it as a pleasure in which she and her potential lover can engage. This representation of a typically taboo sexual culture fulfills Warner’s definition of queer yet again.

A final characteristic marking this music video as queer is the relationship shared between two hyper-feminized women. There exists a stereotype in gay culture that when two women pair, one typically has a “butch” presentation and the other a “femme” presentation. This is not the case in “Te Amo.” Both women dress in feminine clothing, wear heavy amounts of makeup, and use very feminine body language. Although Rihanna seems more domineering, she still has a very feminine presentation. This partering between two “femme” women fits Doty’s definition of queer because it falls outside of stereotypical labels for lesbian women (7).

1. For nearly the first 50 seconds of the video, there is no music and also no contact between the two women. How does this strike you, or what do you think the function of this cinematic choice is in a music video that for the most part appears to be overtly about a potential lesbian relationship?

2. In an earlier blog on Hozier's Take Me to Church, you were questioned on why you thought feminine pronouns were used despite the video featuring two men. What does Rihanna's use of feminine pronouns do to our perception of the music video, in contrast to Hozier's?

3. While the two women's presentations as "femme" serve the purpose of breaking the stereotype of the "butch/femme" stereotype in lesbian relationships, in what other ways do you think their appearance is important? 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 British-American musical comedy horror film. Though the film was initially a relatively large failure, it has become one of the most financially successful films of all time and longest running movies shown in theaters. It has become iconic for its midnight performance showings, as well as for being atypically sexual while challenging traditional gender roles. Rocky Horror has created a social phenomenon and branches out from the traditional heteronormative matrixes often seen in popular culture. Despite being released forty years ago, the film still provides a rallying point in and outside of the queer community with its concepts of what it means to be a human and correct.

The film contains a number of queer characters. Dr. Frank-N-Furter, the film’s main antagonist, is who the audience immediately focuses in on. He is bi-sexual, trans*, promiscuous, as well as a mad scientist. While holding a convention to showcase his newest experiment, a recently engaged (and virgin) couple by the names of Brad and Janet arrive on the doorstep of his Transylvanian castle. After their unexpected arrival, Dr. Frank-N-Furter continues with his convention and eventually brings his experiment Rocky to life, as a naked Brad and Janet watch in terror. As the movie progresses, Frank-N-Furter has a number of sexual encounters with Rocky, Brad, and Janet. He performs a number of different songs, such as Sweet Transvestite, and even commits heinous and gruesome murders.

Link to the song Sweet Transvestite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc80tFJpTuo

The Rocky Horror Picture Show supports Michael Warner’s definition of queer by protesting norms and the idea of norms and normal behavior (Warner xxvii). No only can this film be considered queer because of the sexuality of its characters, their dress, and their gender performance, but through their murderous and cannibalistic behaviors. The characters in Rocky Horror reinforce Marinucci’s argument that “far more of us are queer than not” (Marinucci 36). Even the respectful, virgin couple exhibit their queerness throughout the film as they explore their sexuality with Dr. Frank-N-Furter and each other. By applying a queer reading to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, we learn how the film offers the audience an opportunity to redefine categories and leaves the film open to interpretation and defining new categories.  

Discussion Questions:

1. In what ways other than gender and sexuality could Rocky Horror be read as queer? Could cannibalism and motherless procreation be seen as queer? Could you view this film as queer in multiple ways?
2. The film has gained enormous commercial success and continues to live on in various forms. In what ways does this success alter the definitions of mainstream film? Can the film be read through Marinucci’s lens of redefining categories of success?
3. The film is now 40 years old, and operates in an entirely different context from when it was created. With the evolution of social circumstances and beliefs, how does Rocky Horror fit in to our current society? Does the age and difference in language, dress, and action also make this show queer through Doty’s reading?