I’d like to expand on this part of Petty’s article — but first, my apologies for submitting this the day it’s due. With our final projects drawing near, it’s becoming hard to keep these blog posts in sight.

Petty talks at great length about the shots of mouths as metaphors for silence in the black gay community. She also describes the use of white and black mouths, mixed together in montage, as a way of showing the cross-cultural nature of the systemic prejudice all gay men face.

What I’d also like to suggest is that this juxtaposition of white and black can also underscore the collisions between the two races. For Petty, the intercutting between white and black mouths is a way to make the racial composition of the men undifferentiated. For me at least, montage also carries with it a sense of a violent clash between two things — the feet of heroes and villains in a Hitchcock film, for example, or pretty much any scene involving the ruling class and proletariat in Eisenstein’s movies. Perhaps this just reveals my own cultural expectations going into the film, but I found the presence of the white mouths jarring, and I think it was specifically the use of montage — not just the mouths themselves — that made me feel this way.

Take, as a counterexample, the Michael Jackson “Black or White” video, where people of multiple ethnicities morphed into one another, suggesting how similar or closely related “we all are.” The morphing effect makes one person literally become another, which suggests their interconnectedness in an overt way (this first person IS this second person). Now, I’m not suggesting this effect should have been used in Tongues Untied — I’m trying to show that unlike morphing (where we see that the relationship between the shots is explicitly about similarity or sameness), montage is more ambiguous because it has multiple meanings, and thus can give the jarring effect of showing two things which are related, but may also be against one another, at the same time.

Thematically, this notion was reinforced later in the film with the juxtaposition of vulgar depictions of blacks (as morbidly obese, as having preposterous phalluses) with the magazine pictures of confident, attractive whites.

To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with Petty so much as augmenting her argument. In addition to depicting silence as a cross-cultural phenomenon, the use of montage also highlights the paradox inherent within the black and white gay communities: their sexuality binds these men together, while their race holds them apart.

Like Flemming, I’m unsure as to what exact message Caouette wanted audiences to feel about himself, his mother, and the people in his life based on “Tarnation.” However, I do feel powerful emotions from the film, which I think is more of the Tarnation’s point, as opposed to providing a single clear-cut meaning.

As in the Petty sentence quoted above, Tarnation is extremely personal, and while not necessarily confrontational (except maybe in Caoutte’s confronting life without the grounding a stable family would provide ), it is extremely discomforting. This is shown by a number of conventions.

Most of the video clips in Tarnation are shot with a handheld camera and are grainy and low quality. Lighting isn’t professionally done. The editing is fast. Images appear in strange colors, for example, in an early recording of his grandmother, the background is bathed in green light. The subject matter of mental illness and decay is disturbing, and many of the shots are as well—A young Caouette in a confessional tone making up descriptions of his abuse and his baby, for example, or frequent scenes of blood.

By the time the second half of the movie comes around, I’m beat up emotionally by the discomforting images and material. The second half of Tarnation shows a clearer image, colors are less, for lack of a better word, off, and by this time, I’m looking for something to emotionally latch on to. Because of those things, I feel more attached to the tenderness of the scenes of the mother and the son together.

Ultimately, that’s what I walk away with. The knowledge that Caoutte loves his mother. And what message could be more resonant?

Growing up with supportive parents, finding a spouse, and having children is a luxury for most gay men and women, leaving them without  a sense of family, community, or even self. Both Tongues Untied and Tarnation present the stories of gay men struggling to come to terms with their identities. These films focus on two individuals searching to find a sense of self through performance- whether vogueing or “snap rapping” (as in Tongues Untied), or acting and film making (as in Tarnation).  Their motivations, however, are different. As Sheila Petty notes, Riggs “…considers Tongues Untied as an attempt to counter what he views as the displacement of the black gay as ‘Other’ within his community.” When Riggs recounts his own life stories and philosophies, it is for the purpose of finding a place within community and society at large; he focuses on the “we”. In contrast, Jonathan Caouette (Tarnation) is a man searching to find himself in the context of his family- particularly his mother. As Caouette confesses, “I can’t escape her. She lives inside me. She’s in my hair, she’s behind my eyes, she’s under my skin.” The aforementioned quote comes at a time when Caouette is dealing with his mother’s schizophrenia- the result of nearly three decades of constant electroshock treatments.  Jonathan himself has reason to worry, considering he was diagnosed with depersonalization disorder after smoking a couple of laced joints at 13 (though a traumatic childhood certainly was a factor as well). I wish to look at Caouette’s struggle deeper.

Tarnation opens with about a minute of  Jonathan’s (grown) mother singing and giggling like a little girl. After the credits, Jonathan learns of his mom’s lithium overdose (still in the present) and he deals with the repercussions. From here, the sequence of events goes back in time to the marriage of his grandmother and grandfather; these are told through family photos and home videos. Someone singing “ten little indians”, the gentle folksy music, and the super 8 film quality reinforce the innocent home spun feel at this point; these images and sounds feel like the could have come from any ordinary American family. However when the revelation comes of Jonathan’s mother’s EST, so too does a quick close up (1 or 2 frames) of a tortured woman accompanied by the sound of an electric jolt. As Jonathan’s childhood becomes ever more tainted by the harsh realities of having a mentally ill mother (abusive foster homes, watching her raped in front of him, an estranged father), so too do the images and sounds on the screen become more tainted. Caouette still uses the images from his home photos and videos; however they are sped up or slowed down, shown in rapid succession or held in focus until they dissolve, or presented through red or blue filters. The resulting effect is a bit like that of a horror movie.

Jonathan would go on to live with his grandparents where he began to explore acting and film making as creative outlets. Simultaneously, his depersonalization disorder and obsessions with dream states would present themselves in both his real life and work. Jonathan would have frequent “nervous breakdowns” and escape reality through macabre or esoteric films or plays. As an adult, Caouette would use aforementioned editing techniques to highlight his state of mind during these years. His mental state serves as both a blessing and a curse allowing the audience to catch a glimpse into a mind in a dreamlike state that sees the world different than most, yet certainly creating a high sense of angst for anyone to actually endure. As an adult, Jonathan would go on to escape to New York where he would fall in love and build a life of his own. By now, Jonathan has built his own sense of family and the film presentation becomes more traditional, that is, not as manipulated or dark. At this point, his mother comes back into his life but eventually overdoses; Caouette deals with the fallout of this (and her deteriorated mental state) in the last minutes of the film, which brings the audience full circle. Caouette’s method of direct confessionals or home video performances create a portrait of a man acutely aware of the camera and its power to aid in the discovery of self and family- even when he has to build his own definition of what that means.

I watched Tarnation, and was very much in doubt about what Jonathan Caouette wanted to show with this movie. The main character is his mother as well as himself. She battles severe schizophrenia, and he himself seems to battle his own demons. As with Tongues Untied Tarnation is a movie about gender and homosexuality, but is so in a very indirect way. The main story is about Jonathan’s mother, who is in the first clip of the movie, and who has been receiving electrical shock treatment since she was 12. It is the main claim of this, that it was this shock treatment, that made her so schizophrenic, and that she was healthy before. It is a very brave claim, but it is totally unsupported by arguments. Towards the end of the movie Jonathan starts questioning his grand father about why he administered the shock treatment, (the same grand father, that he called a good man by the start of the movie) in a rather harsh way. He then leaves for Houston for New York soon after, and in the last scene of the film, he looks towards the camera, and says that he hopes he doesn’t end up as his mother. At that point he realizes that schizophrenia is indeed a genetic disease, and that his project – to prove his grand parents guilt in tarnishing his mother’s and his life, is wrong. This is all in front of the question of gender, and if this movie is about gayness, it is how absolutely normal, peaceful and creative his homosexual life is compared to the American Dream life, that he was born into. It is not objectivity or balance, but rather a very subjective and very personal testimony, that is close to his own way of thought. Essentially Caouette is more about being queer than homosexual, his own creativity and androgenousity is in focus, and the gay part is more as being part of a creative movement, and meeting great people, than the actual desire for men.

As for more of the production elements I love the way the still pictures was used to show the history of the family starting with the grandparents. At first I thought that, this documentary would just be one with still photos. One that was comprised of just pictures, music, and words. To me that was  very clever and a way to tell of one’s past without any type of reenactments.

Side facts, I watched some of this documentary at night time and I must admit, I had a hard time sleeping. Also I thought it was a small world when the mother went to prison at Marion Illinios. That’s actually the same place I went to pris…naw my alma mater is only 3 minutes form Marion Illinios. Also I tried watching the rest of the documentary in the school library cafe and found it very difficult because a naked male was crawling around the floor like a dog. Sadly to say the woman I have been trying to court for weeks in the library seen that and thinks ofterwise of me now. Can I put lol?

The suffocating effect is obvious as the pace of the editing is quickened, the continuous close ups of people yelling derogatory words, and the continuously tighter close ups on Riggs.  For me, this scene would not have been as effective if not for the performance of Riggs.  I liked the concept of this film, but I was not particular moved by any of the performers other than Riggs.  Riggs recites his poetry in a way that moves your soul; you feel the pain that he feels through his strong yet vulnerable voice.  I was especially moved by the close up on his eyes.  Riggs had a glassy eyed stare that looked as if he was about to start crying, and the close up helped convey that.  I found it interesting that gay black men even felt ostracized within the gay community.  It’s hard to understand how one must feel as a result of this; fortunately, Riggs’ film shows us.

Caouette also included multiple shots his mother dancing. Sometimes she was shown in slow motion then slowly zooming in her happy smiling face. And then he cut it to his own smiling face.   

The very touching scene was when Jonathan came to sleeping Renee and covered her with the blanket. Then cut to his face looking at her, camera pans left to Renee’s sleeping face. Jonathan touched her face with his finger and faded in the shot where he put his head next to her head.

I was also interested in his dreams. When he was a kid he wanted to meet famous producer and direct with him a play where whole his family would play. I think this is such a touching evidence of love to his family.

 No matter how vigorously people argue about definition of beauty, love shown in “Tarnation” is beautiful in every meaning of this word. I felt love throughout the whole film probably because I heard this word a few times. Once Adolph said it, another time I heard it from Renne, but the most touching confession of love was certainly from Johnathan. There is another reason that film was conveying love as the main idea. Even though film starts more likely as an autobiography, we constantly see shots of Johnathan’s mother – Renne. The first establishing shot of the film is Renne dancing on her kitchen. She was next to Johnathan when he was born, then he visited her when she got to clinic, then we see her again at home. Then she comes to New York. And there are always shots and videos of her. By the end of the film I realized that in fact film was not supposed to tell the story of Johnathan’s life, but to tell how much he loves his mother. That is confirmed by touching confession that Johnathan made by the end of the film. Johnathan shares very intimate feelings and therefore viewer feels his emotions and feelings better. And those feelings are love and respect.

please write about either film but try to connect it to the article: start you post with quoting a sentence from the article and then agree, disagree, illustrate…