Bamboozled

[Jenna Stannis]

So, for those of you who don't know, Tropfest is the world's largest short film festival in the world and is held annually in Sydney, Australia. Tropfest has now also expanded to numerous other countries, so it's a pretty big deal. Tropfest generally attracts witty, irreverent, competent entries from relatively unknown and/or cutting edge filmmakers. Winners of Tropfest are revered among the film elite and they often go on to forge successful careers in the film industry.

Tropfest is no stranger to controversy and this year's winner, Bamboozled, has attracted some flak for its portrayal of gender and homosexuality. In a nutshell, Bamboozled, by Matt Hardie, is a comedy about a guy who falls in love all over again with an ex whom he randomly meets on the street. He doesn't recognise his ex at first, because, he is told, his ex has had FtM SRS. I won't spoil all the fun and hilarity of the film's twist ending, instead I'll let you watch it for yourself [potential TRIGGER warning]:



The controversy of Bamboozled, argue its critics, stems from the fact that the film uses homosexuality as a punchline. And not only that, the film uses transexuality and SRS as said punchline's set up -- its straight man, so to speak.

Hardie of course says his critics have missed the point of his film. "The punchline really is a comment on media and how the world may have homophobia, but the lead character, and what I was saying, he was completely willing to go with either gender, he was in love with the person," Hardie said.

The film has decent production values, but for a prestigious short film festival winner I find the film banal, racist, puerile and pretty much phobic everything. The film's subject matter is at best bland and at worst offensive. As for the director's claimed ambition to hold up a mirror to mainstream media portrayals of gender and sexuality, I think the film contributes to, rather than helps solve, the problem of negative gender and sexual stereotypes. Of course, the film's satirical message might be too subtle for my ageing, addled brain.

What do you think?

[MadeleineG]

Honestly, I found it amusing and "got" the director's intended message. It doesn't have any replay value, but I don't see anything overly controversial here.

[Shaina]

I found it offensive, actually.

I like comedy as much as the next person but I don't think that exploiting real-life issues for trans men are appropriate. 

[MadeleineG]

I found it offensive, actually.

I like comedy as much as the next person but I don't think that exploiting real-life issues for trans men are appropriate. 

I'm not offended primarily because I didn't get the sense that the director wants us to laugh along with the a$$hole film crew. If I had, I'd have surely bee offended. I honestly felt though, while watching, that the director wants the viewer to be offended by the homo- and transphobia--not to laugh at the protagonist.

[Jenna Stannis]

Thanks, Gwynne.

Yeah, I get the message, but wondering whether the methods used have clouded that message.

Why do you think there's been such an uproar about the film; have people become too precious regarding gender and sexuality?

[MadeleineG]

Thanks, Gwynne.

Yeah, I get the message, but wondering whether the methods used have clouded that message.

Why do you think there's been such an uproar about the film; have people become too precious regarding gender and sexuality?

The message is ambiguous. That's good storytelling (particularly in a short story/film), but leaves the interpretation open to debate. If the film were more didactic, there wouldn't be an uproar, but it also would have been much less effective at prompting discourse.

[Jenna Stannis]

@Gwynne: As someone who likes Louis C. K., I hear you. While I think CK is hilarious, I'm sometimes left wondering whether he's gone too far. But without that edginess there would be little discussion on the topics that he broaches in his routines. Without that edginess, we're left with safe gags that support and don't shake up mainstream, conservative group think, the status quo. Sometimes the jokes are perceived to have indeed gone too far, but I guess that's one of the hazards of the job. Of course, there's also an element of the "eye of the beholder" in all this, where my limits may not be the same as yours.

[MadeleineG]

Of course, there's also an element of the "eye of the beholder" in all this, where my limits may not be the same as yours.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Ms Grace]

Some coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald...

Tropfest winner Bamboozled accused of homophobia and transphobia

Matt Bungard - Sydney Morning Herald

The film that scooped top prize at Sunday night's Tropfest in Sydney is now facing a social media backlash over claims it promotes homophobia and transphobia.

Short film festival Tropfest has found itself embroiled in controversy after a comedy about gay sex was named best film on Sunday night.
Upset film fans took to Twitter and Facebook to express their disappointment at the judges' decision to give Bamboozled the top award, while former NRL star Ian Roberts said the film was degrading and homophobic.

"I'm blown away," Roberts, who is now an actor, said. "It's so embarrassing ... it's so degrading ... so transphobic and homophobic.


"Imagine if you'd done this with an Asian person or an Aboriginal person. There's no punchline there, that's totally unacceptable. But with the gay community, it's still OK."

But gay comedian Josh Thomas defended the film, by director Matt Hardie, in which the main character is reunited with a former lover, Helen, who has undergone a sex change and has become a man.

[LordKAT]

It was good until it got to the game show part. Cut that part off the end and it was good.

[Jenna Stannis]

Hi LordKat. Thanks for commenting. All I can say about the film is that if it was the winner, the other films must have been of a very poor standard. But aside from quality, the whole film was full of inappropriate, misleading and stereotypical gay and trans references. Perhaps the filmmakers were just incredibly naive (rather than malicious), but either way I think the Tropfest judging panel were asleep at the wheel on this one. Yes, the director claims to be making a statement about media representations, but I think that message is overshadowed by a lot of other major gaffes throughout the film. The theme for Tropfest was "change" this year, so, to be really cynical, I think the director thought "sex change" would be an awesome subject, with the added bonus that he would get brownie points for attempting to make a social statement (as ham-fisted as that attempt was). Funnily enough, however, it turns out that nobody in the film had actually had a sex change.

And on this last point, if nobody in the film had had a sex change, then are criticisms of the film depicting the trans character as deceptive actually valid?

Just out of interest, other than the supposed "Ooh, reality TV is bad" message, in what other ways is this film meant to make us think and reflect on issues of gender and sexuality?

More commentary on the film, a lot of which I agree with: http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/trans-community-responds-to-transphobic-tropfest-film-12535.html

I thought this comment on Tropfest's Facebook page was sopt on as well: "He was accepting of the transgendered person because they were not a 'real man'. Otherwise what is the point. Ha ha you actually did it with a guy! If the trans identity was taken as genuine he had already done it with a guy"