Film probes LGBT prison complex

Re:Thinking Queer presented 'Criminal Queers' on March 30

· March 31, 2011, 5:23 am

Share This

One might not expect that an event on the tensions of discrimination toward homosexual and transgender individuals is accompanied by hearty laughter from the audience throughout, but such was the mood on Wednesday night.

Over 50 people, many of whom were non-Penn affiliated Philadelphia residents, gathered to view Criminal Queers, an independent film about gay struggles within the prison industrial complex in America.

The event took place in Fisher-Bennett Hall and was presented by Re:Thinking Queer, an undergraduate organization that presents lectures aimed at tackling queer issues.

Eric Stanley and Chris Vargas, the directors of the film, provided commentary before and after the screening.

“The brutality of U.S. law is hard to deny,” Stanley said. “The movie asks more questions than it gives answers,” Vargas added. The filmmakers addressed the subjects of violence and hate crimes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals by drawing parallels to race violence and condemning the penal system.

During one scene in the movie, a reporter questions whether the nature of crime makes every offense a hate crime. Stanley asked, “how can we not call the entire prison system itself a hate crime?”

Stanley and Vargas balanced the solemn aspects of the subject matter with lighthearted jokes, and the film reflected this with dialogue that was campy and jesting. Hardly a scene went by during which the audience did not erupt with laughter.

“I think that campy films can appeal to a wide audience and can convey a really serious message,” College freshman Loren Kole said. “There’s a lot of life in the film,” she added.

The responses from the rest of the spectators were of the same vein. College sophomore Joshua Herren said, “I really, really, really enjoyed the film. It hit on some very important issues. I thought it was funny, thought-provoking and very accessible.”

When asked about the use of humor on such a serious issue, Vargas said “it was a great way to deal with the weightiness, but make it pleasurable at the same time.” Stanley agreed. “Humor is a really important tool in political change,” he said.

This was the inaugural event hosted by Re:Thinking Queer, which was created by College junior Meg Hlousek and College junior Alex Niculescu. “We wanted to create a space for dialogue and discussion on the queer politics that is not necessarily the mainstream voice on Penn’s campus,” Hlousek said.

“We decided that we want the events to include a film along with a lecture and facilitated discussion,” Niculescu added.

Comments (2)

wolfgang

March 31, 2011, 11:42 am

Flag this comment

"One might not expect that an event on the tensions of discrimination toward homosexual and transgender individuals is accompanied by hearty laughter from the audience throughout, but such was the mood on Wednesday night."

That is all I expect. Raucous, unrepentant laughter.

WhyDoIStillBotherToReadTheDP

April 2, 2011, 2:00 pm

Flag this comment

I feel compelled to offer a slight correction to this article-- the movie didn't address "hate crimes" directed at queer people, but rather, offered a critique of hate crime legislation, which is one of two platform issues that mainstream LGB(not really ever T) advocacy groups, such as the HRC, have identified as their primary political objectives (the other platform issue being marriage "equality").

The film came out against hate crime legislation because it was asking its audience to think about the relationship between criminalization and oppression. Hate crimes legislation-- which adds extra years to sentencing, and will sometimes also change the nature of the charges for people who have been arrested-- contributes to criminalization and effectively aids in propelling the development of the already quite muscular prison industrial complex. The film was asking its viewers to consider whether queer people should get behind mainstream queer politics, like marriage "equality" and hate crimes legislation, because both of these platforms inevitably contribute to widespread structural injustice. In the film, for example, the character of Lucy Parsons, who was in prison as a result of a marriage protest that she orchestrated (which appeared in Stanley and Vargas' _Homotopia_) some months before the opening of _Criminal Queers_, has time added to her sentence because it was determined that her protest at a gay wedding amounted to a hate crime. Thus, the film parodically shows Parsons being sentenced to "7 life sentences."

Just a clarification-- Stanley's comment that the prison industrial complex might be a hate crime was not an endorsement of hate crimes legislation, but rather, a condemnation of the prison industrial complex.

And to the commentator above, the movie really was funny. I don't think there was any "laughing at," happening, just "laughing with." It was a huge group of queer people and allies coming together to think about the relationships between seemingly different forms of structural injustice.

Comments are closed for this item.