Manuel here to offer this week's Looking recap filtered through a decidedly ranty diatribe on LGBT representation.
I was looking for glimpses of the city that had formed me. I didn’t hold out hope that a Hollywood product would show me anything I recognized beyond a consumer gay culture satisfied with glossy representations as a sign of progress. - Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
I couldn't let this week's recap go by without addressing that New Inquiry piece published last week about Looking which opens with a Rent anecdote and that quote above.
Sycamore's framing tells us everything about what I've elsewhere called "the burden of representation"; notice that every sentence starts with an authoritative "I" that is supposed to function as both a composite of those "I"s that Looking and the homonormative gay industrial complex displaces but which nevertheless points us to an individuality that would (and does) refuse an acknowledgement from such a representational vantage point. There is no hope that mainstream representations would present anything Sycamore would recognize; this is both the foundational claim and foregone conclusion of the piece. [More...]
"This one we're selling to some hipster fuckers who are going to sell shrimp meatballs out of it. Doesn't that sound so stupid?"
What follows is as a scathing (and perhaps necessary) review of the worst of gay male liberal progressive politics that so many are more than happy to join in allegiance with "affluent straights in ethnic cleansing as long as they can live as close as possible to the best single-origin drip coffee, the most creative craft cocktails, the sassiest sweatshirt boutiques, and the most exclusive indoor street food."
Looking becomes an excuse to rail against the Man (who, despite his newfound and out homosexuality, remains in the thrall of capitalism, sexism, racism and any and all ills that continue to plunge non-normative identities to the recesses of American life, something which Sycamore's endlessly readable edited collection Why Are Faggots So Afraid of Faggots? deals with in lucid detail, even if it also begins from the platitude that mainstream LGBT representational politics are not radical). Haigh's series, Sycamore argues, is "a tourist brochure for a gentrified San Francisco, an advertising campaign with bodies as billboards," presented uncritically to an audience who treasures such an aspirational mirror image in the media. This is, of course, a more sophisticated version of the "Patrick & co. are nothing like the gays I know!" criticism which has been leveled at HBO's show since its premiere last year (interestingly, last week's comments pushed pretty much against this very notion, arguing instead that the Looking boys are anything but a positive representation, so I guess we really are a diverse bunch not easily boiled down to soundbites and slogans!)
It's a fascinatingly dull conversation to have mostly because it both begins and ends with the assertion that Looking doesn't accurately represent the diverse world of gay San Francisco and that it is a mainstream show focused on three quintessentially contemporary gay men. What it should push us to do and ask is where and why there isn't more representation; Looking makes a great straw man but I don't think it's as oblivious of its setting and embodied politics as Sycamore would have us believe, nor should its representational politics be taken without context. I'm always left wondering what these critiques are supposed to effect; is this a plea for shows like Looking to be pulled from HBO? A call to dictate what types of representations are featured? Or, as it turns out, just ways of rehearsing larger conversations that a prestige show is unlikely to address and fix all by itself?
Thus, while we may want to "defend" Looking on the grounds of "look how far we've come!" this would only prove Sycamore's point ("yes, look how far you've mapped out a vision of whitewashed progress!") while a denial of its critique leaves us being complicit with it. The question then becomes whether (and IF!) Looking should be (as a friend posted on Twitter) a gay The Wire. Of course, what Sycamore is diagnosing is systemic; what straight shows on air are questioning the very institutions they're built on and representing those who get left behind or willingly displaced? The assumption at the heart of Sycamore's critique is the belief that Looking (and any LGBT representation with a platform) would have an implicit imperative to be queer because it features gay people. Haigh's show is not about oppositional queer politics but this is neither a new insight nor an indictment of it as a television show unless you see representation and visibility as its only raison-d'être.
As if on cue, though this week's episode saw Patrick venture outside of San Francisco, Eddie open up to Agustin, and Kevin opt to rekindle his relationship with the ever elusive John (might that couple end up being precisely the poster boys that Sycamore so disdains? More so than Patrick at least, no?). It was great to see Patrick out of his element (pretty much establishing the very insularity Sycamore diagnosis) and I actually loved seeing Richie's family forcing him and Patrick to deal with the homophobic banalities that those born outside of a privileged worldview have to deal with on a daily basis, from playful jabs to hostile barbs.
Best line of the episode I wish I could off-handedly use:
"Remember the gringo with the Vespa?”
Best Doris moment: None! Dom & Doris were absent but Richie's cousin Ceci more than made up for it, carefully walking the line between sassiness and bluntness that Doris's best moments so beautifully capture.
Best gif-worthy moment: Ceci's look when Patrick asks her if what she'd "jokingly" said about not dating white guys isn't racist.
Previously: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4
What's everyone's take on that New Inquiry piece and this week's Looking? Did this week merely prove Mattilda's assertion that the world of Looking is intent on giving "no hint of a queer alternative" or did its focus on Richie and Eddie begin opening up those cracks between Patrick and Agustin's privileged insularity?