I've been wanting to do a project like this for a while now and this class was a perfect opportunity to, as it fits the kind of content I want to create in the future--informative and maybe even funny. I want people to enjoy watching my videos while I spread awareness.
I interviewed two polyamorous people first and it originally started as a serious project exploring what polyamory is and why it's so unheard of in the media. I then realized a lot of people hadn't heard of it so I decided to make the doc more light-hearted to shed light on the fact many people don't know. Along the way of production, I discovered the sections on sexuality in bookstores are tiny--the biggest store having seven books, and the section is labeled "LGBT", not inclusive of "QQI" (queer, questioning, intersex). It feels outdated and forgotten so I included that in the film. Also, the books in these sections were mainly books written by men for women on how to get men, featuring blatant misogyny in the books’ titles. There needs to be more media literacy on sexualities, especially romantic identities that is not just men preaching at women about their bodies and sexuality. I show my disappointment with that in the film.
I think my role was to act like I completely don't know and I enter all this blindly, but I try and make sense of it as if I'm the viewer. But being so reflexive, it's not voyeuristic. Being at the forefront of the film was something I have never done before but felt comfortable doing. It gives the audience a buffer between the exposure to the new idea because it is as if I am being exposed to it as well, on screen. If I do not express discomfort, it could ease conservative or traditional viewers’ minds and maybe viewers would be more open to different sexualities as well.
People I interviewed on the street made a lot of generalizations about women throughout the interview. I heard a lot of sexist comments that I decided to leave out because they sometimes even strayed from the point of the film. The man in Union Square who said misogynistic things about the girls he had dated in his polyamorous relationship felt like bashing because he had gotten dumped and I would have rather left him in a positive light for the sake of the identity. That also brings up more questions about jealousy that I would have rather asked the two subjects I interview towards the end of the film and that I do ask them. I had to leave in another man because his whole interview was very much about his ignorance. Another guy asked to be interviewed so I said sure and he said he didn’t know anything but asked for my number. I left him in because we were at the weed parade, he was “smacked”, as he put it, so it was probably inevitable to get an interview like him.
What I noticed about interviewing strangers is when you ask them to be interviewed, they will talk to you before the interview about the topic and ask for prep, but their raw answers were actually the best. They then tend to censor themselves when the camera turns on. I only had three people who knew what polyamory was and along the way, people asked me to define it. So then I decided to check a textbook. The first half of this documentary was shot in order and based on the feedback I got from New Yorkers. Of course there are things I know I want to improve and work on with this film, as some questions are left unanswered.
Works Cited:
Veaux, Franklin. "Polyamory FAQ - More Than Two." More Than Two. Thorntree Press. Web. <http://www.morethantwo.com/polyamory.html>
My final project for Media Criticism is a research paper on Wonder Woman and why she was created. The Psychologist who created the character in 1941 was in a Poly amorous relationship. He lived with his wife and mistress and children from each in Rye NY. The things we learn.
ReplyDelete