Conflict Between Queerness and Heteronormativity in ‘My Own Private Idaho’
By Ros Tibbs
Gus Van Sant’s 1991 film ‘My Own Private Idaho’ proves itself to be a staple in artistic independent cinema as well as queer cinema. The film, which depicts the lifestyle of two male escorts, provides its niche audience with a personal insight into the intimate ideals of its characters and the complexities that arise from them when the aspect of homosexuality is incorporated.
The dominating component that laces this piece of cinema with the theoretic scope of queer theory is the central relationship between the two protagonists, Mike (played beautifully by the late and sorely missed River Phoenix) and Scott (given to us by cinema favourite Keanu Reeves), and the consistent homoerotic undertones which exist within it. To me, the film is an interesting portrayal of homosexuality within cinema and grants numerous dissections under a queer theory framework, such as homoerotic undertones opposing heteronormative ones; a main focal point to this analysis. Queer theory can be explained as
The film derives from the 1963 novel ‘City of Nights’ by John Rechy which presents street hustlers who struggle to admit to their queer identities, immediately introducing homosexuality to the content. It focuses on an expedition towards an inner self-discovery that takes place within an exterior one around America. Mike and Scott attempt to locate Mike’s mother as Scott struggles to find his own identity away from his affluent father. Mike’s objective of closure by finding where he came from is operating next to his objective of living comfortably with his sexuality
The narrative and cinematic conventions to van Sant’s contribution to the art-house genre demonstrate a portrayal of sex and love that strays far from heterosexuality. This assists in evincing its position in the ‘New Queer Cinema’ movement that introduced LGBT+ identities into the stories and visuals of the 90s cinema. One example is the gay magazine sequence in ‘My Own Private Idaho’ which takes place early in the film’s narrative, this scene establishes a diversion from the traditional heteronormative approach to cinema due to its notable but important imagery and symbolism with relation to queer theory. However, it is not necessarily positive in its portrayal. To elaborate, this sequence, which focuses on the group of male escorts posing on famous gay magazine covers, highlights the use of homoerotic images (the shirtless attractive men choreographed in seductive poses) that symbolise a superficial presence of homosexuality. The focal character of this sequence is Scott, who vocalises that his partaking in this spread is only for work and that he doesn’t mind doing so as “long as the photographer doesn’t come onto {you} him”. Here, the character is accentuating an indication that homosexuality does not exist to him on an authentic level, only another job opportunity which can earn him money. This is a rather narrow-minded perception of minority sexualities as they are being watered down to nothing more than a cheap tactic for the characters to gain a profit, rather than being represented and respected for genuine identities for people. This has the effect of queer undertones being represented rather negatively in this film’s narrative because they’re designed in a shallow manner, therefore this scene is an interesting addition to the analysis of the film using queer theory due to this reason and the comparisons it provides for when the narrative progresses.
This opportunity for comparison is a fundamental element to dissecting the portrayal of queer identities in MOPI because it provides an opportunity to chart the growth of queer representation in the narrative. This is identifiable in the following sequence which involves Mike admitting he is in love with Scott. This scene requires a focus on a dissection of the dialogue through a queer theory scope. For example, Mike’s query to Scott “what do I mean to you?” to which Scott replies “you’re my best friend”, is a seemingly platonic piece of dialogue, however, one can find a queer convention located within it. To me, this exchange of communication alludes to the interpretation that Mike has been questioning what position he has in Scott’s life and that he may have a specific answer he wishes Scott to give. This interpretation can correspond with queer theory because Mike may have the wish to be deemed as more than a peer to Scott, a possibility that is confirmed as the dialogue progresses and Mike vocalises his true feelings for him, “I could love you and you don’t pay me”. Here, the spectators can see that the queer undertones progressing into genuine emotions felt on Mike’s part, rather than just a false image designed for the characters to branch out to more customers. This sequence does include some narrow views likewise to the previous, therefore accentuating the homoerotic tones clashing with those of the heteronormative. An emphasis on the lines “two guys can’t love each other” and “I only have sex with guys for money”, stated by Scott, once again proposes a counteraction to homosexuality, likewise to the magazine sequence. The character is demonstrating a rather negative perspective on homosexuality, even going as far as to deny its existence which stands as a strong contrast to Mike who is gay. Overall, the bold characterisation here is illustrating two distinct perceptions of LGBT+ personas. Mike is attempting to suggest authenticity in queer identities and emotions, which is highlighted by Phoenix’s performance that can only be described as tender, vulnerable, and laced with emotion. Whereas Scott combats this with an invalidation to homosexuality and therefore, dismisses his friend’s proposal of a love that is not platonic or heteronormative. Foucault communicates the position Mike has now been put in as a queer figure as he is now “a social minority imprisoned within a dominant culture”. Furthermore, Scott still argues that homosexuality exists to him on a financial level, showing his perception’s lack of growth as well as a submission to heteronormative ideals. This scene outlines queer sexualities in the plot which immediately clash with heterosexual traditions and conservative mindsets.
The narrative then emphasises the conflict between authentic homosexuality and heteronormativity enfeebling it to hollow acts for financial gain when Scott and Mike engage in a gay threesome with a man called Hans. The sequence is not shown to us in a raunchy and crude manner but instead is stylised in an avant-garde portrayal of the three posing in suggestive ways. The spectators are given snapshots of Mike and Scott having sex with their male clients as they stand completely still in several positions while classical music accompanies the sexual act. This sequence blends the two sides of the conflict which occurs throughout the film as it shows gay sex in an artistic and somewhat beautiful light, yet it is still just a false gesture for Scott as he is getting paid for it which is its only appeal to him.
This is a clash between homosexuality and heterosexuality is again present in the final example of queer theory in the film, which includes the introduction of the character Carmella who is immedicably given the role of Scott’s love interest. This highlights how the narrative is playing into heteronormative ideologies as a male character has chosen a female lover over another male who was genuinely in love with him. Spectators can focus on how the division between the queer undertones and the heterosexual elements becomes strongly prominent in this section of the story, resulting in Mike being left heartbroken while the man he loves starts life with someone else, showing the heterosexual tones have triumphed. This is demonstrated in the stylised manner of Scott and Carmella positioned in numerous sexual positions meant to represent heterosexual intercourse, which is a comparison with the ones shown before in the gay threesome as this act is supposed to be authentic and a demonstration of genuine love instead of a job. These shots are then contrasted with a shot of Mike standing alone in a field, highlighting that he is an outsider in this part of Scott’s life. Once again, the homoerotic conventions in MOPI contend with those of the heteronormative with relation to the main characters’ feelings and relationships. The queer tones of the film become overpowered and erased by the more accepted heteronormative ones, manifested in Scott and Carmella moving away to live a life together and thus, leaving Mike alone and heartbroken. Ryan offers a cause for this presence of heteronormativity with “It is only the laborious imprinting of heterosexual norms that cuts away those potentials and manufactures heterosexuality as the dominant sexual format”, and thus, highlights how the conventions imposed by society is what has caused submission to this orientation. It is this surrendering to heteronormativity on Scott’s part that assimilates MOPI’s plot with sorrow projected onto Mike, whose now left on his own after opening up about being gay, and is single and unloved by the film’s conclusion. The lack of consideration shown towards Mike from Scott and Carmella demonstrate the absence of handling LGBT+ identities, whether that be in mainstream cinema or real life.
To conclude, ‘My Own Private Idaho’ stands as a classic example of the queer character in cinema with its emotional demonstration of queer love and acts while contrasting them with the ever dominant heteronormative perceptions which can act to eliminate LGBT+ identities. Mike’s homosexuality is in combat with the conservative ideals towards relationships, manifested in the opinions of the same man he has fallen hopelessly in love with.
Bibliography
Michel Fouclaut’s ‘The History of Sexuality’ 1976
M. Ryan ‘Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction’ 1999