The film that I watched at reelout was called sex, sin and ’69, in reference to the year when they legalized gay marriage. The film was a documentary that when through time and showed how we got to where we are today in terms of acceptance of various minorities such as sex, race, gender and so on. It started off referencing back to the 1500s, where in Indigenous cultures, being two-spirited was considered normal, proving that not across all cultures and times, has it been viewed that everyone is binary. The film also discusses the issue we have discussed lots in class, intersectionality, which is the axes of oppression and how they intersect with each other causing further discrimination then when they are experienced individually. Throughout history, white gay men have had the easiest time being accepted for being gay in comparison to other communities. Specifically, it addressed the stigmatization for Muslims, where they have a much more difficult time expressing their homosexuality because it is proposed that Muslims cannot be gay due to intersectionality. White males throughout history have maintained superiority and dominance over everyone else. These impacts are still seen today in our education system. In this film, a female teacher demonstrated her way of seeing such in her classroom. She asked all of her students to write down a list of all the non-white males they have learned about in history class in school. The students list either contained no names or very view. Furthermore, demonstrating that the white male view, even today, still overthrows every other race, gender and sexuality background, and although circumstances have improved, the issue of white male superiority is still prevailing in the twenty-first century. This teacher’s demonstration in the film truly caused me to reflect on my educational experience, prior I was truly oblivious and failed to notice the white male supremacy that still is apparent in our current educational system, which is truly sad. The documentary went on to talk about the year of 1969, the year where gay marriage was finally legalized. I presumed that this legalization meant that gay marriage was finally accepted by everyone and people no longer had a significantly heterosexual mindset. However, as the film went on, I learned that although the legalization was a big step forward, that the legalization in itself did not entail that people were accepting on homosexuality. In reality, the police and the catholic church remained very homophobic and continued to discriminate against homosexuals, regardless of the new law change. The first gay marriage took place January 2001 in Toronto. The officiator of this marriage spoke, he explained of how fearful he was to conduct this marriage, he was very threatened that he feared harm. He had to wear a bulletproof vest that day because he feared someone with homosexual views would attempt to shot him. No one ended up shooting him, but earlier that day he was assaulted. He also went on to say that before the marriage ceremony he called his loved ones in case he did not make it out alive of the officiation. 2001 is thirty-two years after the legalization of gay marriage, yet people were still very fearful of getting married because even thought it was legal, it still remained impermissible. The film also discussed bath houses in Toronto, which were safe places for gay people to socialize. During the eighties the police raided the bath houses, were verbally abusive, and arrested innocent people. The police caused over 50,000 in damages to the bath houses. All of which served to enforce that heteronormative constructions of society will prevail. The film also referenced a monthly magazine series called body politic which were sold in Canada during the seventies and eighties. These magazines were gay focused. One of the articles was titled “Men loving boys loving men.” After its publication the offices were raided in Toronto and members were charged with “possession of obscene materials for distribution” and “use of mails to distribute immoral, indecent and scurrilous materials.” This caused serve emotional and economical damage. These magazines allowed communication amongst queer communities in Canada and played a significant role in developing Canadas LGBTQ+ community. After Pierre Trudeau was elected, some historical advancements took place. He instilled the charter of rights and freedoms. In one of his public speeches he declared, “There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” This line signifies the first time that any member in the Canadian parliament explicitly expressed that the affairs of Canadian citizens, regarding one’s gender, sexual orientation etc. it is not their place to insert themselves. The role of a prime minister does not entail embedding themselves into Canadians personal matters. Furthermore, enforcing that he will not try to interfere in people’s lives just because they do not comply to the heteronormative standards. This marked a big step forward in accepting minorities in Canada. Homosexual acts were no longer able to be criminalized due to Pierre Trudeau’s revision. Overall, throughout Canadian history discrimination against minorities has improved and we have come a long way from where. We started and are certainly becoming more accepting. However, let us not dismiss the ongoing and current issues minorities are facing. The film brought up many modern-day statistics that deserve our attention. Twenty-three percent of the current homeless youth are members of the LGBTQ+ community. This community also faces hate crimes which entail the most amount of violence, which is very concerning. Today, non-cisgender people are still viewed as a problem that must be fixed and are assumed to be psychologically ill. Non-cisgender people have a greater risk for suicide and unemployment, as they cannot access as many job opportunities. With all of the continuous challenges, Canada still remains advanced over most countries. As of 2019, sixty-nine countries still criminalize homophobic marriage. Ultimately, the reelout film sex, sin and ’69 was a very education documentary marking Canadas progression in accepting minorities and discussing the ongoing issues we must continue to conquer today.

-Katarina Astrom, 1005 Words

Julia Baldassarra
20163814

When deciding to attend the Reelout Queer Film Festival in Kingston, Ontario for the first time I knew I needed to pick a film that would help enhance my knowledge of the LBGTQ+ community as I strive to become an active ally to this community. The movie Sex, Sin and 69 was the perfect choice to fulfill what I was looking for. Sex, Sin and 69 directed by Sarah Foley is about the history regarding the laws around homosexuality and homosexual relationships, specifically regarding marriage between two homosexual individuals.

Before the movie itself started a twelve-minute video about the Positive Space program and the history behind this program played. The positive space program was started at Queen’s University and the main goals are to celebrate sexual and gender diversity in the Queen’s University community. I felt that this video was the perfect thing to show before the movie as I felt that it enhanced the overall experience. By acknowledging that people are not always educated on the LGBTQ+ community but want to participate in programs such as the positive space program encouraged me to continue to expand my knowledge in order to become a better ally to this community. This video also helped tie into the themes of acceptance, societal growth and progression that were seen in Sex, Sin and 69.

The movie began with an overview on the laws in place before marriage between homosexual people was legalized. Prior to the laws being changed being queer (having non-normative sexual desires and sexual practices) was seen as a mental illness. People were punished for being queer, were imprisoned, and were sent to mental institutions. Some people were even subject to conversion therapy. The movie acknowledges that a key figure in getting the laws changed regarding homosexuality was Pierre Elliot Trudeau who at the time was acting as Justice Minister. A key line noted in the film was when Trudeau stated to reporters outside of Parliament that “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” (Folger). I really appreciated the insight into how Canada used to address since I find that we often hide the bad parts of our countries history, and I also found that growing up in the Catholic school system the ideas discussed in lecture such as normativity were present within my school community. Since the schools I attended focused on teaching what the Catholic school board considered to be normal I never got any education on the history of the treatment of LGBTQ+ community and the allies who were involved in changing the laws such as Pierre Trudeau, because of this I felt like I never fully knew the extent of Canada’s history until now. Another thing I enjoyed about Sex, Sin and 69 was the documentary style the movie was presented in. The director did a great job of incorporating media clips and photos from the year the law was being changed which helped provide context to the way society was when the omnibus bill was proposed. The director combined these media clips with clips of current people in the LGBTQ+ community who provided facts about the situation from the perspective of the people whose lives would change as a result of this bill passing. The formality of the film allowed the viewer to understand the seriousness of the topic, and fully immerse themselves into the thoughts and feelings of those who struggled to get acceptance within society.

Another thing I enjoyed about this movie was the diverse range of topics it covered regarding the LGBTQ+ community that many people may not be aware of. Sex, Sin and 69 featured key people in the movie who were well educated on the topics of two-spirit identity, being intersex and being transgender. While society is becoming more and more educated on the topic of transgender individuals until this year, I had some prior knowledge on what the two-spirit identity is but had no knowledge on what being intersex meant. By discussing these more unknown topics, the director of the movie is allowing more awareness to be made and creates more recognition of these different identities that many people often do not understand and can squash any misconceptions that may surround these groups of people. By continuing to discuss these topics we are continuing to defy the idea of normativity and create a new one that is accepting of all identities and views everyone as “normal” rather than out casting people who do not fit the past ideals society has had about people.

While there were many positive things about Sex, Sin and 69 there were a couple things in the movie that I wish they had done better in order to fully inform society of the oppression faced by the LGBTQ+ community. The first thing that I wish had been done better in the movie is more representation in the people they interviewed in the movie. In the film the topic of intersectionality was spoken about. Intersectionality, a term created by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw is defined as “seeing distinctive systems of oppression as being part of one overarching structure of domination as a system of interlocking race, class, and gender oppression. Assuming that each system needs the others in order to function creates a distinct theoretical stance that stimulates the rethinking of basic social science concepts” (Kaufman, 2018). In my opinion if you are going to bring up such an essential concept in understanding oppression then the people, we are interviewing in this film should represent multiple diverse backgrounds in order to fully understand the various impacts these previous laws had on various racial, cultural and gender groups. To add onto this due to this lack of representation in the presenters the presenters in the film did acknowledge that even after the laws changed in 1969 many groups were still oppressed because of their race, gender, religion etc. however, I felt that this topic was glossed over and not given enough acknowledgement in the film. Even though we cannot deny that the laws did change in 1969 I feel it is important to acknowledge that while the laws may have changed the views of society did not change as quickly.

Overall, I do think that Sex, Sin and 69 was a great documentary and I would recommend it to anybody who wants to learn more about the changing views of Canadian society as I felt it did have many great elements and topics featured that are essential to understand as we continue to become more a more accepting and open society.

Works Cited

Kaufman, Peter, 2018. “Intersectionality for Beginners.”

Sex Sin and 69. Directed by Sarah Foley, 2019.

Word Count: 1096

Megan Tesch

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sell By (2019) had amassed a great deal of attention before it arrived at the Reelout Queer Film Festival in Kingston. As a directorial debut from screen writer, actor, and, now, director Michael Dole, this film has been part of the official selection for over 20 film festivals and received various awards. Above all else, it is important to note that the cinematography from Ludovic Littee and music from Dabney Morris allows the audience to truly enjoy the subtleties in the actors and actresses performances, as the blue grey tones in many scenes and deep melodies are there to emphasize the characters’ story, not distract from them. The film follows two men, Adam and Marklin, in the midst of their 30s’ as they struggle to redefine their relationship and figure out where it stands in their lives. This is not without issues arriving in their support system’s lives as well, as Cammy engages in a relationship with a man living in a homeless shelter, Haley has turned the eye of one of her high-school students, and Elizabeth is considering divorce with her husband of 15-years. This film discusses a vast array of issues that are not exclusive to LGBTQ+ relationships, but to romantic relationships at large, in a light-hearted and airy manner.  

Adam and Marklin’s same-sex relationship was normalized throughout the film as it was depicted as equal to the various heterosexual relationships. The script would likely not have been changed much if this were a heterosexual couple. Stuart Hall’s theory on encoding and decoding film and media is evident in this film, as it states that messages may be encoded into televisual stories and the apparent naturalness of televisual codes disguises their ideological potential (Jenkins 384). In this framework, the creators of this film encoded the message that same-sex relationships are not to be emphasized or understated, and the audience can decode that norms in society should be changed to reflect the world represented in this film. Further, all of the heterosexual relationships depicted in this film (Elizabeth and Damon, Cammy and Henry, Haley and Scott) are all inter-racial. This fulfils the ever-growing need in film for greater representation and integration of races within couples. This especially works to challenge the romantic comedy norms, of which this is the film’s genre. Romantic comedies are typically white, heterosexual couples (Moddelmog 163). As Sell By works to break both race and sexual orientation norms, it does so with a light touch. When considering intersectionality, an important theme in any discussion on sexuality and race, Sell By falls flat. 

Adam and Marklin are not depicted as victims of bigotry, but there are a few instances that depict their struggles with homophobia living in Western society. Despite the evident rise of hate speech in contemporary online platforms (Cooper 244), Marklin, a social media influencer, is not shown as a target for any such comments. The very few moments of such hate speech are nuanced into the film to show how although it exists, this is not a movie about homophobia. However, when contrasted against a character like Cammy, a woman of colour, intersectional points of discrimination are not discussed once. Intersectionality is a theory from American lawyer, activist, and scolar Kimberle Crenshaw that emphasizes how different systems of power, including gender, race, and class, intersect to create different degrees of oppression and discrimination (Ahmed 119). Cammy’s story lays equal to the rest of the characters, and yet the struggles that could potentially impact her life are not depicted. Perhaps this is an issue on the hands of the quality of the script, but nonetheless, it is a missed opportunity for flushed out representation. Tokenism is the use of diverse characters without representing them in a significant and nuanced way (“Forced Diversity…”). True representation counts in films such as these; token diversity characters do not deserve a place in the award – winning category. 

The way in which one particular character is depicted shadows a poor light on a large community with the United States; the homeless. The homeless are a group that has been highly debated amongst policy makers and government agencies alike (Honig and Filer 248). This is similar to those of the LGBTQ+ community and African Americans within the United States. Henry, Cammy’s homeless boyfriend, is constantly berated throughout the film for spending nights in a shelter. At one point in the film, Cammy states in exasperation, “what white guy in his thirties is homeless?” Further, it is not only in Henry’s interactions with other characters that he is criticized, but the way in which he acts as well. The way Henry is written has him stunned by the wealth of Cammy and her friends, who, apart from Marklin, are presumably lower to middle class. When discussing the reasons for Henry’s situation, the most the audience receives as an explanation is that he would rather stay in the shelter than get a job. This is a false representation of homelessness, as common causes of homelessness are based on mental and/or health issues, rent prices and systematic forms of oppression (Honig and Filer 248). 

Sell By is not a movie about sexuality, race, or even class. It is instead a movie about friendship and romantic relationships that crosses boundaries. It works to challenge heteronormativity, which is the enforcement of heterosexuality on the population, without falling victim to homonormativity, wherein the norms and values of heterosexuality are replicated and performed in the LGBTQ+ community (Eeden-Moorefield 563). These are commonly apparent themes in romantic comedies. Through this, the film allows for audience members that fit into the romantic comedy tropes of race and sexuality to relate to this film and the characters’ stories, as they are not stories about sexual orientation or race, but instead about relationships and the issues that anyone may face in such situations. However, this film also allows for those that relate to the sexual orientation or race of the characters to see lives similar to their depicted as a norm in society, without the need for explicit clarification or the use of stereotypes. Sell By is a film that has the potential to alter how the LGBTQ+ community is viewed in film, if only it included a greater discussion of intersectionality. 

Works Cited 

Ahmed, Sarah. “Being In Question.” Living a Feminist Life, Duke University Press, 2017, pp. 116–125. 

Cooper, Cynthia A. “Anti-Gay Speech On The Internet and The Movement To Counteract Cyber Hate.” Race/Gender/Class/Media 3.0: Considering Diversity across Audiences, Content, and Producers, 3rd ed., Pearson, 2013, pp. 244–250. 

Eeden-Moorefield, Brad Van, et al. “Same-Sex Relationships and Dissolution: The Connection Between Heteronormativity and Homonormativity.” Family Relations, vol. 60, no. 5, 2011, pp. 562–571., doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00669.x. 

“Forced Diversity – Tokenism vs True Diversity.” Youtube, uploaded by Pixel_Hipster, 27 May 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGjV-3M_nJw.   

Honig, Marjorie, and Randall K. Filer. “Causes of Intercity Variation in Homelessness.” The American Economic Review, vol. 83, no. 1, Mar. 1993, pp. 248–255., http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117507. 

Jenkins, Henry. “Negotiating Fandom: The Politics of Racebending.” The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom, 1st ed., Routledge, 2017, pp. 383–393. 

Moddelmog, Debra A. “Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?: Hollywood Romance, Citizenship, and Same-Sex Marriage Panic.” Journal of Popular Film and Television, vol. 36, no. 4, 2009, pp. 162–173., doi:10.3200/jpft.36.4.162-173. 

Word count: 1,040