As a history fanatic, the movie that piqued my interest was Sex, Sin and 69. The documentary is in an interview styled format where the audience hears the perspective of a group of Canadians who have experienced the aftermath of the changing Canadian law regarding homosexuality. The film detailed the oppression and suffering that the LGBTQ community has faced around the world. When measuring it against today’s society, tolerance and equality has come a long way in Canada. The title of the movie pays tribute to how in the year 1969, the Canadian Bill C-150 was passed which was a steppingstone to the decriminalization of homosexuality. Overall, the film did a good job delivering the facts and perspectives of the legalization and acceptance of homosexuality but failed in having more representation and maintaining audience attention.
For the audience to enjoy a documentary, the facts must be presented in a way that is captivating. This documentary was very artistic but felt a bit repetitive. The delivery of facts was very uniform; it was on a clear and concise timeline, but more videos and animation could have been included. I found myself bored at sometimes because the film felt like it was constantly people, I chairs answering various questions. The film was made in a more serious and professional manner which could explain why it was very uniform.
One of the highlights of the documentary was listening to the history which was depicted through people’s experience and testimonies about that time in their life. They had an animated timeline which was narrated and highlighted with the use of newspaper and magazine articles. This was an interesting medium to deliver the facts and had historical meaning because it showed how pop culture viewed the “controversial” topic. In the chapter about popular culture in the book, Race and Racialization Essential Readings, the author defines propaganda as “the transmission of ideas and values from dominant groups who control the means of communication, with the intention of influencing the receivers’ attitudes and thus enhancing and maintaining their position and interests” (Solomos & Back, 2007:247). Some of the headlines were demonstrative of the hate that the homosexual community faced. This hate could be perceived as propaganda as the papers tried to advertise homosexuality as a medical illness. This definition connects to the film because the dominant group, the heterosexuals, alienated the homosexual community through means of mass communication. After they showed the timeline, there were clips from various interviews which were conducted. These interviews including some Canadian people, including a priest who officiated the first gay marriage in Canada, various human rights lawyers, a gender studies professor and a couple of people who directly experienced these societal changes themselves.
A major criticism I have for the film is that there is a lack of sexuality, gender, and racial representation. The film did an excellent job of representing gay men, but only had two women speakers, one who spoke about being lesbian before 1969 in Quebec and one who is a gender studies professor. Having a lack of women speak was disappointing because I believe that they share a different perspective with regards to this history and current issues regarding the LGBTQ+ community. Being that this was a film about gay rights, I believe that they should have shown equal parts gay oppression of men and women, while also highlighting the different ways this is experiencing by utilizing an intersectional lens. The queer film festival is promoted a sa positive, inclusive space. It was disappointing to see the lack of representation of these marginalized groups within this space. In addition to women, there was also no representation of the transgender community or the two-spirit community. They showed clips discussing two-spirit people and drag queens, but they did not have individuals with lived experience speak and share their own perspective. Not only was there a lack of diverse genders and sexualities represented, but there was also barely any racial diversity. Intersectionality is a very important concept and it would be nice for someone to have had spoken from experience. As mentioned in “intersectionality for beginners” by Peter Kaufman, “Because the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated”(Kaufman, 2018). Intersectionality is a lens where we can knowledge that every person has their ow story and their own perspective. These perspectives and experiences occur through their intersectional les, which is why I wish that they would have shown a more diverse group with unique experiences. This will encourage and include marginalized groups into the discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ issues, which does not happen enough within mainstream media. The bigger picture is about human rights as a whole and societies stride to achieve acceptance and tolerance for everyone. Intersectionality is the key to understanding how society works and it would have been nice to see more representation because of it.
Overall, the film Sex, Sin, 69 was a good documentary outlining the historical evolution LGBTQ + rights and acceptance in Canada. This movie was produced in 2019 which is 50 years after bill C-150 was passed, and a lot has changed since then. In society today, people are more accepting and respectful of the LGBTQ+ community because of the empowering, inclusive and encouraging actions of those in 1969.
Word count: 901
References:
Back, Les and John Solomos. “Race and Racialization: Essential Readings.” Races, Racism, and Popular Culture. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 2007. 247.
Kaufman, Peter. Intersectionality for Beginners. 23 April 2018. https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2018/04/intersectionality-for-beginners.html#more>.
Site Title 