Dallas Buyers Club
Dallas Buyers Club is a 2013 film about Ron Woodroof and his work creating an underground distribution of unapproved drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. The film is loosely based on a real story, with many characters and aspects added for dramatic effect. For example, Rayon and Dr. Eve were both fictional characters created from the stories of others. The film, to me, functions under one of the rhetorics of AIDS Nye mentions in The Rhetoric of AIDS: A New Taxonomy; AIDS the Educator. Nye describes AIDS the Educator as functioning “...for people within the community and for people outside.” (Nye 241) As mentioned in the outtake slides shown before the movie, many queer people critiqued the film, but the general public highly enjoyed the film, earning it many nominations and awards. So, the film did not necessarily act as an educator for those “within the community” (i.e. those within the queer community), but it did educate those “outside the community,” aka those not already knowledgeable of the AIDS epidemic.
Although the queer community may not have reacted positively to the film, the general public did, which I believe was the goal of the film. With its release date occurring during the midst of the gay marriage debate, it’s not absurd to argue that this film was in part a strategic play to make the general public more supportive of gay marriage and the queer community as a whole. As Giroux states, “The potency and power of the film industry can be seen in its powerful influence on the popular imagination and public consciousness.” (Giroux 587) Whether audiences realize it or not, films can powerfully impact the world, and I think the creators of this film knew that.
While watching the film, my mind kept coming back to a quote from bell hooks. In Introduction: Making Movie Magic, bell hooks writes about how she had “...wanted to interrogate specific films that were marketed and critically acclaimed as progressive…to see if the messages embedded in these works were really encouraging and promoting a counterhegemonic narrative…” (bell hooks 3). I kept thinking about this quote because Dallas Buyers Club was seen as progressive, but it did little to go against hegemonic narratives, especially regarding queer characters. Historically in film, a queer character's narrative arch ends with death, and this film does not divert from this. Rayon, the only queer main character, dies and her death is used as the turning point for Woodroof. After her death, Woodroof cared less about monetization, which we can see when he sold his car so he could provide treatment to those who couldn’t afford it. He also becomes a more tolerant person, specifically to those who are different from him. Her death changed him, and thus her role was fulfilled.
Besides her death, her character does little justice in regards to transgender and queer representation. First off, she is never correctly gendered in the film, even by her so-called friend Dr. Eve. We also know nearly nothing about her besides 1) she’s transgender and 2) she has AIDS. We can infer she has a partner, the man who takes her to the hospital near the end of the film, but we don’t even learn his name. And when we do learn more about her personal life, it’s for Woodroof. When we learn about her father, it’s because she’s getting money for Woodroof. And, like I stated before, even her death is for Woodroof to grow as a character. Even from the beginning of the film, her existence as a character was for Woodroof to get his underground business started. He couldn’t access the queer community because he was hostile towards them, so he needed someone who was part of that community.
One of my main questions after finishing the film was why the filmmakers chose to have Rayon be a transgender woman. They could have easily made her character a gay man, so why a transgender woman? My first instinct is to say that it was just a choice, nothing more. But as Smith writes in "It's Just a Movie": A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes, nothing is “just” anything in film. There must be a reason for Rayon being a transgender woman. My thoughts are that the filmmakers chose to make her a transgender woman to further emphasize the differences between her and Woodroof. If she was a gay man, she and Woodroof would at least have gender as a similarity between the two. But as a transgender woman, she and Woodroof have nothing in common besides the want to survive their diagnosis. And the film shows audiences that, despite their differences, they can work together and even build a friendship. I’d be curious to see what others think about this choice.
Citations:
hooks, bell. “Introduction: Making Movie Magic.” Reel to Real: Race, Sex, and Class at the Movies. New York, NY: Routledge, 1996.
Nye, Emily F. “The Rhetoric of AIDS: A New Taxonomy.” Embodied Rhetorics: Disability in Language and Culture. Southern Illinois University Press
Smith, Greg M. ""It's Just a Movie": A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes." Cinema Journal, vol. 41 no. 1, 2001, p. 127-134. Project MUSE
Hi Milo!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the intention behind the Rayon character was difficult for me to understand, especially since they cast a cis man to play her. Not only that, but they kept misgendering her throughout the film, referring to as a “he” or “Miss Man.” Her gender identity is made the butt of a joke, when she oggles the breasts of a waitress, envious of the size and wishing she could have top surgery, and when Ron threatens to shoot her in the groin and “Give her the bottom surgery she wanted.” It seemed like being trans was a joke, and if the film actually handled her journey and identity with respect and tact, then maybe there might have been a more positive reception to the character.
Hi Milo!
ReplyDeleteWonderful post. I was struck by how you phrased your introduction to the film, saying it was "loosely based on a true story, with many characters and aspects added for dramatic effect." Your phrasing made me begin to question how ethical this movie really is, in the sense that it is kind-of-sort-of depicting the real life of a maybe-queer person, and choosing to sensationalize it. It reminded me of the Marilyn Monroe biopic that came out recently, and how many people were upset because of how poorly it portrayed Marilyn's character. It is okay to change and alter a person's identity to make their story more successful in a box office? Since Dallas Buyers Club didn't seem to be explicitly marketed as a biopic, does that make it okay? I don't know, I guess, but your post made me consider how decent this film is even in its conception. Sorry if that was rambly, but just some food for thought, I guess! Thank you :-)
Izzy