Gender and sexuality
has always been a crucial hub of discourses on which postmodern identities are often
defined and experimented. Postmodern identity defines itself on the self-definitions that it
assumes to be the chief traits of the postmodern structural patterns of normative
behavioural constructions. These postmodern identities are gays, lesbian,
straight, bisexual, exhibitionist, submissive, dominatrices, swingers (people
who engage in partner exchange), switchers (people who change from
being gay to being straight or vice versa), traders (gay men who have sex with straight men),
born-again virgins(people who have, technically, lost their virginity but
pledge to renounce sex until marriage), acrotomophiliacs(people who are
sexually attracted to amputees), furverts(or furries- people who dress up in
animal suits and derive sexual excitement from doing so).The important point here is that we draw on these
categories in order to make sense of who we are: we define ourselves in part
through our sexuality.
The
constructed sexuality and sexual identities define the postmodern man. In the pace of postmodernity,
the constructed imageries of sexuality also alter as per its convenience. The
visibility of Sexuality may be found everywhere in the contemporary world of
normative structural patterns. The sexual feeling and behaviour of a person may
term his/her sexuality. When applied to groups of people (e.g. heterosexuals)
ideas of social attitude and organization are implied to term their sexuality.
Socio-cultural and political forces shape sexuality and connect in important
conducts to relations of power around class, race, and especially, gender. This
relational connectivity of gendered signifier and structures of power
discourses embrace the hierarchical order of mainstream discourse on which one
may diminish the other. The social and cultural construction of a person’s sex
and sexuality may term his/her gender. The normative structural pattern of the
cultural understanding of sexuality is about the masculinity and femininity, in
other words, ‘proper’ ways for men and women to behave. This cultural normative
construction of sexuality refers the politics of the postmodern visual industry
through the normative structural pattern of the preconceived subjective ideas
about sexual behaviour. The behavioural patterns of gender, sex, and sexuality
can overlap but are exact match. This ‘mismatch’ has generated a fascinating
body of film production and criticism.
Cinema is one structure among others that constructs sexuality.It
is both the means of construction and destruction of normative patterns on
which most of the socio-cultural canons and credos connect.Earlier, cinema required fixed iconography for
audiences to follow the narrative, which cost the characters to be stereotyped.
Thus, within mainstream cinema especially, but not exclusively, stereotyping is
not questioned. Equally, sexuality was ‘normally’ taken to refer to
heterosexuality. Motion pictures contribute a crucial set of signifiers that
actively participate in the multifaceted processes that codify sexuality and gender.
Cinema may presumably speak for the voices or the group on which it has mass
appreciation and reception, therefore the forsaken sound of the category of the
identities may always be abandoned that it would become the part of muted discourses
on which none may talk or walk. The history of cinema itself is the history of
dominant voices. The elite class representation and the subverting attempts on
the side of the mainstream voices have manipulated the subtext voices that are
consciously been forsaken. Whatever attempts may done, the unconscious
contentment of the dominant cultural psyche would surpass the conscious psyche
of the subtexts.
Mainstream
Malayalam cinema has projected, and at times hastily displayed liaison, homicide,
dissension, viciousness. The notable fact is that the reluctant behaviour of
the industry to discuss the ‘queer’ on screen. Malayalam cinema from 1930’s to
the present has taken us to the possible levels of aesthetic and intellectual
reflection and entertainment, possibly adopted from every thought of Malayalam
cultural psyche, social system and perceptions on gender and sexuality. It celebrates
the aesthetic appreciation of nature and female body and treats ‘sexuality
without falling into vulgarity’. Malayalam cinema is also on the verge of
transformation as it practices the ‘hypothetical diplomacy’ on gender ideology
and sexual constructions. Recent years show the transformation of Malayalam
cinema as well as cultural psyche on the issues of sexuality. A close reading
of Malayalam cinema shows the hegemony of the mainstream celluloid voices. The
obvious fact is that the whole process of cinematic realization is fulfilled
through the negation of certain identities that have a potentiality to question
the current flow of linear sexual discourses. This linearity of gendered discourses
often places the Malayalam cinema on the hot seat of contradictions.
Cinema is the youngest of all the modern arts
through which many of the modern concepts and ideologies emerged and conceived
the form of discourses. Queering of the mainstream heterosexual space is much
celebrated for its queerness itself. This paper would look in to the gendered
constructions of the Malayalam cinema that is often well known for its sexual
and violent treatment of identities. The paper is concerned mainly with films
that do not depict queerness explicitly, but employ or provide platform for
lesbian and gay interventions and the myth, history, role, status of
homosexuality as time goes back.
Comments
Post a Comment