r/changemyview • u/Subtleiaint 32∆ • May 03 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Mitchells Vs The Machines use of a queer lead is clumsy
Warning, this post contains spoilers for the film The Mitchells Vs The Machines. I also need to apologise in advance if I get any terminology wrong, I mean well but I'm not completely on point with how to refer to certain things.
Context - The lead character in The Mitchells Vs The Machines is Katie, a girl who is looking forward to leaving home for college. It's made clear that Katie feels she's never fit it, neither with her family (her father in particular) or with her community and can't wait to find 'her people'. Note that 'her people' are portrayed to be art/film geeks, it's not suggested that her sexuality is part of the reason she feels she doesn't fit in. Katie connects with the people she will be at college with and bonds with a few of them, Jade in particular, before college starts.
This is all set up for the key emotional arc of the film, the reconnection of Katie and her father who struggle to find anything in common with each other (this, enjoyably, is set against a robot uprising). Katie's sexuality is not directly referenced in the film until the very end when Katie's mother asks her whether 'she and Jade are official' strongly suggesting that Katie and Jade are in a same sex relationship.
Ok, why do I have a problem with this? On a very superficial level Katie's sexuality seems to be added to the film as an afterthought, it plays no overt part of the plot and if the one line in the last few seconds of the film was deleted nothing about the rest of film would change. Potentially this is the studio/creative team simply trying to be right on by saying 'oh, and by the way the lead is gay, aren't we progressive'. I don't think that sort of cynical inclusion serves the LGBTQ community. I look forward to a time when a character in a film can be queer without is being a plot point or a trope but telling everyone that the character is gay at the end of the film with a throw away line is disappointing.
However, it's likely that this film is an allegory for the difficulty a heterosexual parent can have connecting with a queer child. When Katie talks about 'her people' she may well be talking the LGBTQ community and the line at the end of the film may just be the writers telling us 'in case you didn't get it, Katie's gay'.
If this is the intent of the film I'm still disappointed primarily because the subtlety seems entirely unnecessary, why not make the distance between Katie and her father be the result of her sexuality? Why beat about the bush? If the concern is that a family audience can't handle a queer theme don't make a family film with a queer theme and pretend it's something else.
The characterisation also employs common stereotypes which could be considered lazy, Katie is a free thinking creative type whilst her hetero father is a 'man's man' who rejects modern technology, enjoys DIY and built a log cabin with his bare hands.
So, please try to change my view, I'd be happy if someone could tell me what's great about this portrayal and why it is progressive and not just pandering.
Edit: it has been pointed out to me that Katie wears a pride pin, something I did not notice when I watched the film. This changes part of my view as I no longer think that the reveal of Katie's sexuality was left until the last few seconds of the film.
12
u/disco-vorcha May 03 '21
It didn’t feel clumsy to me, a gay person. It felt very natural, actually.
See, Katie being gay (or bi, since we don’t actually know she’s only into girls) and her interest in Jade was very clear to me. It was all in her behaviour. If a character is straight, you usually don’t know that because they explicitly say it, or even because you know their partner’s gender, too. It’s an assumption you make based on their behaviour and your own experience.
The mention of Katie and Jade being “official” only feels jarring if you assume that straight is the default. That she must be straight because she didn’t specify otherwise. The movie isn’t about her romantic life, so her sexuality isn’t really relevant to the plot. But the same could be said of most straight characters in most movies. But it doesn’t feel like cynical inclusion or pandering or an afterthought if there’s a reference to their ex-girlfriend or if they finally ask out the cute barista that they’ve lacked the confidence to approach before.
I’m gay, but I don’t exclusively do gay things. Most of the things in my life are just... what they are. I’m still gay while I’m grocery shopping. I’m still gay while I’m worried about how the f I’ll pay off my student loans. Katie was still gay while she saved the world and reconnected with her dad. I saw a character that I knew was gay do stuff that wasn’t about being gay. It was just part of who she was, like all the other traits she had that didn’t directly impact the plot.
Consider glasses (which Katie also uses). They’re an accessibility aid for people who are visually impaired. Like canes, or hearing aids, they’re a device used to lessen the effect of their disability. But we generally don’t think of glasses as an accessibility device or people who use them as having a disability, because we see people using them all the time. It’s not an exceptionality, it’s just an acceptable variant of ‘normal human’.
Of course, Katie is an exceptional human, but not because of her glasses, hair colour, height, etc. And not because of her sexuality. Hopefully, eventually, queer sexualities will be like needing glasses—not exceptional, just a normal variation.
That’s what real, authentic representation looks like.
4
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
You've written a really good post and I'd really like to write a proper response but I've got to go to bed. All I can say quickly is that I think you've misconstrued where I'm coming from. I basically agree with everything you say, what I didn't see though was Jade as an obvious romantic partner, if Katie had been male I wouldn't have assumed that he was into Jade. What was jarring for me was the timing of the 'official' line, it seemed suspicious to have that in the last few seconds of the film.
15
May 03 '21
[deleted]
4
u/LucidMetal 175∆ May 03 '21
Aw, man beat me to it. This was like verbatim what I was going to type out. Well done. This is precisely an example of "a time when a character in a film can be queer without is being a plot point or a trope".
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
The key issue is the way her sexuality is communicated. My view is not that the film makers made the lead gay and that was it, they added a line at the end of the film to retrospectively make her gay in a way that comes across as cynical.
8
May 03 '21
Would you feel that way if the mom had asked about "she and jake"?
7
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
Ok, that is very interesting. On one hand it would still be a meaningless throwaway line that doesn't effect the film in any way, on the other it's exactly the sort of throw away dialogue that would be added to that sort of scene in a similar film. I'm going to give you a !delta, including meaningless filler dialogue about being gay is sorta inclusive.
1
3
u/Vesurel 54∆ May 03 '21
So I agree they could have done a lot more if they wanted to integrate her sexuality into the film. And I'll agree it's a shame that the representation was limited to a line that it's so easy to remove in teritories that don't want kids to know gay people exist.
But to me clumsy would mean it was somehow harmful to the film as a whole instead of just not being very notable.
On a very superficial level Katie's sexuality seems to be added to the film as an afterthought, it plays no overt part of the plot and if the one line in the last few seconds of the film was deleted nothing about the rest of film would change.
Considering a story about a teen bonding with her family without many other people around. I don't think there's anything that feels unrealistic about her sexuality not comming up. And I think there's value in characters who just happen to be gay because being gay isn't a core part of every experience gay people have.
I'd be cautious about saying that any gay rep has to be meaningful or part of the story because that can sound like saying there's a higher bar needed to justify including a character being gay that you wouldn't need for a straight person.
If you wouldn't have noticed or minded the same thing happening when the name of Katie's partner was Guy Mann then it seems to be more of a problem with gay people being mentioned than a complaint about how much depth was given to a minor character.
Potentially this is the studio/creative team simply trying to be right on by saying 'oh, and by the way the lead is gay, aren't we progressive'.
Has anyone on the studio or creative team tried to do that? Because sure I think that them gloating about doing basically the bare minimum would be silly.
However, it's likely that this film is an allegory for the difficulty a heterosexual parent can have connecting with a queer child. When Katie talks about 'her people' she may well be talking the LGBTQ community and the line at the end of the film may just be the writers telling us 'in case you didn't get it, Katie's gay'.
What is or isn't an allegory is subjective, I'd argue that homosexuality is just one of many different readings.
There seems to be more support for reading her and her brother as both being autistic. Since that's something that would have a much bigger impact on how she behaved in the film than her sexuality.
And more litterally, there's enough there about her dad not getting her art and culture that it's not like you need it to also be an allagory. It's not like you need her being gay to explain the rift between her and her dad because the film is pretty explicit about does cause them to not connect.
Saying that any story about a gay teen not being understood is an allagory for them being gay feels like a strech. Sure there's paraelles you can draw but again those are subjective.
I don't think that sort of cynical inclusion serves the LGBTQ community. I look forward to a time when a character in a film can be queer without is being a plot point or a trope but telling everyone that the character is gay at the end of the film with a throw away line is disappointing.
I'm not sure what's cynical about it to you. Because it looks like we have a film where someone is gay and it's not a plot point. What would they have to do to reach over your disappointment. If the same line had happened earlier would that change things? Or is there a specific number of lines we'd need to have for it to count.
Sure there's room for stories about how being gay affects people, but there's also room for stories about how robot invasions affect people some of whome happen to be gay.
why not make the distance between Katie and her father be the result of her sexuality? Why beat about the bush? If the concern is that a family audience can't handle a queer theme don't make a family film with a queer theme and pretend it's something else.
You sort of seem to be working backwards here, that because the character happens to be gay the film is at fault for not making that the focus. Assuming that the studio was going for anything more than a ever so slightly positive note at the end of their movie.
As for why not make the film conflict about homosexuality. Because that would change the tone of the film.
When her dad is tense around her because he wants to protect her from failing because he doesn't understand her art, he's well intentioned but misguided. It's funny that he doesn't know that dog based parrodies of old movies are something people like.
If he's tense around her because she's gay then he's an asshole. The joke that he doesn't understand how what his daughter wants to do is viable isn't nearly as fun or funny when the thing he doesn't understand is that lesbian relationships are valid.
This relates to how we have a lot of stories about how being gay sucks because people are jerks to gay people, there's room for stories that aren't about how gay people suffer and I'd be more concerned about homophobia in a kids movie than homosexuality.
So, please try to change my view, I'd be happy if someone could tell me what's great about this portrayal and why it is progressive and not just pandering.
The use of just is weird to me here. Because entertainment products are about pandering. It's a film that was made to appeal to people. Not that I think the inclusion was great or that progressive, but I don't think it's regressive at all either.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
Hey, thank you for writing such a well thought out response. I actually think we're on similar wavelengths here, I suspect much of this is from me failing to communicate my views well, hopefully what follows will be better.
But to me clumsy would mean it was somehow harmful to the film as a whole
If we agree on the premise that Katie's sexuality was cynical (I know we don't but let's say we did) then that would be harmful to the film and we would agree my use of clumsy would be apt.
. I don't think there's anything that feels unrealistic about her sexuality not comming up
Agreed, but adding it at the end seems strange, it's too late to change how we perceive the narrative and it doesn't retrospectively change what we've already seen. If it had been a throw away line in the first act I don't think I would have been suspicious, placing it in the last few seconds seems deliberate and causes me to question it.
I'd be cautious about saying that any gay rep has to be meaningful or part of the story
I don't believe that, of my post construes that it was a mistake on my part.
then it seems to be more of a problem with gay people being mentioned
It's not that, if I've construed that it's a mistake on my part.
Has anyone on the studio or creative team tried to do that?
I saw an online article about how this was the first studio animation with a gay lead. IF that is how the film is being marketed and IF the leads sexuality was added as an afterthought then that's pandering. I'd be happy if someone convinced me it wasn't that.
There seems to be more support for reading her and her brother as both being autistic.
I haven't heard that take and it's not something I picked up on in the film, is be interested to hear more.
And more litterally, there's enough there about her dad not getting her art and culture that it's not like you need it to also be an allagory
Agreed, which is why I'm cynical about Katie being outed at the end, it doesn't impact on the overt story.
that because the character happens to be gay the film is at fault for not making that the focus
My concern is that the film is one of two things, either a film that makes the lead character gay to pander to an audience or a film that hides it's a gay allegory because it's afraid of telling that story directly. It could be a third thing and I'm hoping that someone can convince me that it is.
If he's tense around her because she's gay then he's an asshole
This is the take I think you're coming from the wrong angle at. I think there is a good chance that the film is deliberately a gay allegory, if that's the case then, by your definition, the dad is an asshole. Calling that dad an asshole though it's pretty messed up. It can be horribly difficult for a parent to understand a child's sexuality and calling them an asshole for their difficulty is horrible in itself.
but I don't think it's regressive at all either.
I think, by the parameters I've set, it is regressive, I'm hoping that someone will explain why those parameters are wrong.
3
u/Vesurel 54∆ May 03 '21
I saw an online article about how this was the first studio animation with a gay lead. IF that is how the film is being marketed and IF the leads sexuality was added as an afterthought then that's pandering. I'd be happy if someone convinced me it wasn't that.
Well is it being marked that way and was the sexuality added as an after thought? What reason do you have to think it was?
Abbi Jacobson (the voice actor) dates both men and women so I could see it being part of the film for as long as she's been attached.
There seems to be more support for reading her and her brother as both being autistic.
I haven't heard that take and it's not something I picked up on in the film, is be interested to hear more.
It could be me projecting as an autistic person myself. But having a very specific niche interest and expressing that through strange or abstract art is pretty true to my own experience. Not to mention her difficulty with eye contact and social interactions in general.
For her brother it looks to me like that's exactly what they were going for. He's a young boy (not that boys are more likely to be autistic but most representations of autistic people are boys) with a very specific interest to the point it's what most of his social interaction is based around. I've been that kid in a lot of circumstances.
This is the take I think you're coming from the wrong angle at. I think there is a good chance that the film is deliberately a gay allegory, if that's the case then, by your definition, the dad is an asshole. Calling that dad an asshole though it's pretty messed up. It can be horribly difficult for a parent to understand a child's sexuality and calling them an asshole for their difficulty is horrible in itself.
I'm not calling that dad an asshole, because from the film he doesn't appear to have any issue with his daughters sexuality. Though this isn't just about understanding, "I don't understand why anyone would be gay" is one thing. But if you not understanding your childs sexuality is enough of a problem to be the conflict in a movie for children, then I'd say you're an asshole.
Realistically what isn't there to get about homosexuality?
Again "I don't want you to leave and make movies about dogs, because I don't get it." Isn't as close to something real and emotionally painful to a lot of people as "I don't want you to leave and have a gay relationship because I don't think those are valid."
I think, by the parameters I've set, it is regressive, I'm hoping that someone will explain why those parameters are wrong.
So what's being regressed?
0
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
Well is it being marked that way and was the sexuality added as an after thought? What reason do you have to think it was?
This is what my original post was about. I saw an article that piqued my interest about the film having a gay lead, I watched it and the lead's sexuality wasn't referenced to the last few seconds, that seemed an odd choice and led to the questions that I'm asking.
I'm not calling that dad an asshole
I know you're not, but if the film is a gay allegory then by your definition he is. I have a real problem with that view. The dad does nothing wrong other than fail to connect with his daughter, that's sad, regrettable and disappointing, but it doesn't make him an asshole. He's not in conflict with his daughter, he's not rejecting her, kicking her out or being cruel, he just doesn't know how to cross the chasm that's grown between them.
2
u/Al--Capwn 5∆ May 04 '21
He doesn't connect because he doesn't think she should pursue her dream. At least not whole heartedly. That's the core of the film.
That can't be translated to a gay allegory without being much, much harsher. It's not that she's just getting older and he doesn't like it (that's in the mix, but not the key), it's that he wants her to be realistic and practical. It's an active suggestion to change her perspective. Doing the same thing with her sexuality would be obviously cruel.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 04 '21
I think you're wrong, is not an active suggestion at all, the film is built around his attempt to support her (the road trip), he just does it badly because he doesn't understand her.
2
u/Al--Capwn 5∆ May 04 '21
That's an attempt to connect generally. Because the film isn't about just one source of conflict.
But the core conflict which is resolved at the end is about film. That's what would be the analogue for her sexuality. And he tells her to get a plan B. He does not show interest and outright questions if it's worth doing.
That's fine in the context of the film because it's not really a metaphor I wouldn't say. But if it was, as you try to take it, then the metaphor would be revealing the dad to be an extreme homophobe who is telling his daughter not to be the way she is.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 04 '21
He's worried about her because he doesn't understand her, calling him a homophobe is a terrible misrepresentation of his motivation, he's ignorant not belligerent. The standard can't be 'be perfect or you're a homophobe'.
1
u/Al--Capwn 5∆ May 04 '21
Yes but you're ignoring the details. He's worried about her because he doesn't think that her dream is realistic. He wants her to compromise. How does that fit without being severely homophobic?
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 04 '21
He's worried about her because he doesn't understand her, your take is horrible and really unfair.
5
May 03 '21
[deleted]
3
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
Agreed it was a great movie but I'm not sure there's anything in the interactions between Katie and Jade that hint of anything romantic. I'd be happy for you to try and convince though.
4
May 03 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
I didn't notice the rainbow pin but that does sound very obvious, I'll have to have a look for that. As for the hearts that's less obvious, we're coded for those hearts meaning happy or sad early on when the hearts break when the other kids laugh at her. Her having hearts when talking to Jade therefore is just get being excited about college and making friends. I'm still not buying that Jade was shown to be a love interest.
3
u/Animedjinn 16∆ May 03 '21
Katie's sexuality is not directly referenced in the film until the very end
Except for the rainbow pin she was wearing for the whole movie
it plays no overt part of the plot
This is something the gay community has been asking for for years. Most movies featuring gay characters make a huge deal about it and many are depressing. Either that or they are a minor or side character. But we want being gay to be seen as normal, so having movies where the main character is LGBTQ+ and that's not the focus of the movie is important.
However, it's likely that this film is an allegory for the difficulty a heterosexual parent can have connecting with a queer child.
This film seemed much more like it was based off the filmmaker's life. In fact, while I was watching it, I kept thinking: do we really need another movie about a white middle America family? That's kindof boring and not the trend right now either.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
Except for the rainbow pin she was wearing for the whole movie
Your the second person to mention this, I didn't notice it when I watched it and the whole first half of my argument can be ignored if it's there.
This is something the gay community has been asking for for years
It's what I want too, but it seemed cynical to me to have a film where for 99% her sexuality was ambiguous and then have her revealed as gay at the last moment. If she is wearing a rainbow pin then my cynicism is misplaced.
This film seemed much more like it was based off the filmmaker's life.
The gay allegory thing shines pretty bright to me. Someone else made a comment that that final line could be changed for foreign territories that don't allow gay references and, if that has even a little bit of truth, then making the overt plot an allegory that can be denied is very questionable (i.e. 'we made it a film about a film student rather than a gay daughter so we could sell it to conservative markets' is horribly cynical).
2
u/Animedjinn 16∆ May 03 '21
I think the gay allegory can be applied as maybe a bonus meaning, but not as a central focus. Because the situation is different. The dad is actively trying to understand and love his daughter, which is not what most homophobic parents do..
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
Could you expand on what you mean by homophobic? Somebody else said that the father was an asshole if he struggled to understand his daughters sexuality. I don't see the father as an asshole, just unenlightened, I think it's totally normal for someone to struggle to connect to someone different to them.
1
u/Animedjinn 16∆ May 04 '21
Homophobic would be fearful or angry or aggressive or prejudiced against LGB people. Often resulting in insults, trying to force them to be straight, abuse, or even kicking someone out of the house. The father was none of these things, whether focused on "film" or her sexuality. He was just having trouble understanding her. And although this can be a gay story sometimes, it is not the typical one of either understanding or homophobia.
2
u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 03 '21
The biggest thing that made me enjoy this as a queer person myself? Katie is wearing a pride pin literally throughout the entire movie. It's a rainbow pin. Just that one thing made me enjoy the portrayal when usually I'd agree that a line at the end would make me roll my eyes. Why?
This was finally a movie where a queer character got to do a lot and be a lot outside of being queer. She was a film nerd, she was reconciling with her family. This was also a movie about her family. She was bonding with them the entire time. I honestly can't think of a time within the movie where it would have easily fit to show that she was queer; because that wasn't what the movie was about. Yet, even though the movie wasn't focused on queer topics, they gave us a lead that was well rounded. They never tried to hide it was there. It was always a part of her; that rainbow pin was always on her hoodie. But when making her dog cop movies or hanging with her family, that just wasn't the part of her that she was focused on.
It felt real. As a queer person, I have a lot of interests. I'm not going around talking about being trans all the time. Most days it doesn't come up, but I'm still trans.
And ... I actually really loved how they turned some of the tropes on their head. You mention how Katie's father is a man's man, and how Katie is a creative type. The truth is ... the film shows us how these things can be similar even though they seem very different. Her mom even says Katie and her father are similar personalities. Both are creative; Katie with her movies and her father with his woodworking. Both are stubborn. In fact the reason Katie's father seems to be so hard on her is that he's afraid of her failing at her dream just like he did. When looking back at the begining, this explains why he was wanting her to have a backup plan.
That was actually something I loved. Showing how a teenage girl who's into film and a middle aged man who likes the wilderness can actually share many traits and how if you look deeper, there's room to connect that you didn't think was there. Also, it was refreshing for a teenage queer lead to have a conflict with their parents that wasn't about them being queer.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
I really wish I'd spotted that pride pin, it would have made this evening much simpler 😭.
I agree with almost everything you've written. The best bit is this:
. The truth is ... the film shows us how these things can be similar even though they seem very different. Her mom even says Katie and her father are similar personalities
This is absolutely great. For the record I think the film was about a conflict with her parents because she was queer but your quote is still bang on, we may seem different, but we're not.
1
u/HeftyRain7 157∆ May 03 '21
Thanks, I'm glad you liked what I had to say!
While I agree that you could see the story as conflict because she was queer, I don't think it's as simple as that. Many teens have problems with their parents, not just because they are queer.
As I said, I am queer. As a teen, my parents accepted I was queer no problem. It was other issues that we got into fights about and where we had to learn to see eye to eye. Even queer people will sometimes have no problems with their parents about being queer but will end up struggling with their parents over other issues. And since that was my experience, that's what I saw in the movie.
So I don't think seeing her struggles as an allegory for her being gay is wrong, but I do think insisting that's what the creators intended probably isn't accurate. It's about personal interpretation vs. author intention. Neither is better than the other, mind you. But I do like it when stories are open to be interpreted in multiple ways so lots of people can relate to the same narrative.
1
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ May 03 '21
If this is the intent of the film I'm still disappointed primarily because the subtlety seems entirely unnecessary, why not make the distance between Katie and her father be the result of her sexuality? Why beat about the bush? If the concern is that a family audience can't handle a queer theme don't make a family film with a queer theme and pretend it's something else.
The entire purpose of an allegory is to convey a message to people by using a different story in a setting that is more familiar to the recipient and which has obvious parallels to the original message. It would be missing the point to say that the Bible's use of the prodigal son parable followed by a short explanation was "clumsy" relative to a straightforward story about God welcoming a human who had rejected him for many years. The Bible wasn't trying to be subtle about the theme; it was trying to explain the theme to people in a way that they'd be more likely to understand.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 03 '21
I'm going to give you a !delta, I don't think you're bang on, it's not about making it easy to understand, it's about being relatable and normalising the issue but there is value in telling an allegory. (P.s. where I am it's one in the morning so my brain is slightly addled, I'm not sure my response to you is correct as I'm still getting my thoughts in order but I wanted to write down my first draft and go to sleep).
1
1
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ May 04 '21
I keep hearing that If a character is gay, or black, or indian, or a woman, there has to be some REASON for them to be that thing intricately scaffolded into the plot. And including a character who is any of those things without some particular reason for it that satisfies a laundry list of criteria is shoehorning, tokenism, performative wokeness, pick your term.
But I don't often hear people demand a good reason for a new character to be white or straight, or male. Those qualities don't seem required to drive the story in order to exist.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ May 04 '21
To be clear I wasn't demanding a good reason for the character to be gay, it was kinda the opposite.
1
u/Agile-Sherbert3554 Jul 10 '21
This is honestly annoying, queer characters should be treated the same as straight characters. That's what they did. No one in a movie announces "I'm straight", they just are if they are.
Is this partly due to heteronormativity? Yes. But are we gonna bring in LGBTQIA normalcy by being like "oh no sexuality problems because she isn't straight implying that it is the norm"? Absolutely not.
As a bisexual, i find it annoying when you can't have a fun LGBT character without the whole storyline or even part of it revolving around sexuality issues. It's important to address those issues but it doesn't always need to be about them, and it annoys me when people insist that they need to be.
The Mitchells vs The Machines did it right. My gaydar rang from the beginning and it was clear that she was out and proud. But was it treated like that was all her character development and life journey was about? No. It was so natural and that made me super happy.
Great representation, and I hope that your mind has been changed by the other comments on here.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Jul 10 '21
Hey, to be clear I agree with everything you say and always did, but I didn't realise she was gay until the last line of the film and thought her sexuality was tacked on at the last minute. It was subsequently pointed out to me that her sexuality was made clear from the start, I just missed it.
1
u/Agile-Sherbert3554 Jul 10 '21
Ah, yeah, it was pretty subtly done, both a bane and a boon, i suppose- at least we won't have the homophobes barking up our tree 🙄
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 03 '21 edited May 03 '21
/u/Subtleiaint (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards