Opengender

The success of New Queer Cinema provoked lesbian complaints of the paucity of resources made available to lesbian filmmakers in this context. Through the 1970s and 1980s, the history of white lesbian filmmaking had been closely associated with that of feminist filmmaking (Florence, 1993: 133). Black feminist, lesbian or gay filmmakers, however, more usually worked within the nexus of black film production (Florence, 1993: 133). Feminism's fortunes fell in the 1990s and this has had a major effect on lesbian film practice. There was a general move away from a political emphasis on lesbian autonomy and on deconstructive experiment which characterised the 1960s and 1970s. At the Lesbian Filmmaking Versus Queer Cinema Conference at Goldsmiths College in 1994, a panel discussion on the future of lesbian filmmaking was swamped by complaints from the floor about the low quality of no-budget short films. Politicised, avant-garde lesbian filmmakers struggled to get across both their radical aesthetic aims and the effects of economic constraints on marginal filmmaking. But issues of who/what is being shown, how, by whom, for whom, and why it all matters, got lost in the simple insistence that lesbian films should approximate the production values and realist form of popular film as closely as possible. The younger lesbian audience saw marginal lesbian production as failing to reproduce dominant values adequately rather than as a deliberately resistant, politicised, aesthetic form.

In the feminist heyday, feminist production and distribution projects had been attractive to filmmakers and programmers wishing to access feminist audiences, as well as to funders keen to implement equal opportunities briefs. But even on the crest of this wave they could not survive commercially, not least because they put political before commercial considerations.

Although the founders of Circles [feminist distributors] had hoped that they would become self-sufficient, it quickly became apparent that the kind of work to which both [Circles and sister organisation COW] organizations were committed did not generate enough income to cover operating costs. In fact neither organisation put commercial viability among their primary aims. (Knight, 1992: 185)

As had been the case with print media, the demands of lesbian audiences for higher production values coincided with increasing difficulties in financing the production and distribution of lesbian films. In the context of a general loss of prestige for feminism, a specifically feminist audience was no longer identifiable as a marketing target. Lesbian filmmakers became chary of identification with an unfashionable feminist 'ghetto.'

Women filmmakers in particular often found that the inclusion of their films in a women's programme or a women's film festival only functioned to reinforce their marginalisation [...] At the Créteil festival [1987] a panel of successful women directors was asked if they would put their films with a feminist distributor if one existed in France. Apparently none of them would reply. (Knight, 1992: 186; citing Merz and Parmar, 1987: 68)

Economic, cultural, and funding climates underwent significant changes making the situation even more precarious. In 1990, as New Black and Queer commercial cinemas got underway, the BFI drastically cut funding and amalgamated Circles and COW, both of which carried a substantial body of lesbian work which otherwise had little chance of distribution or exhibition. At the same time, in a recession, commercial distributors wanted to be sure of returns and were unwilling to experiment. Repertory cinemas were closing, stifled by the growth of home video. Subsidies were being cut and the arts sector 'rationalised.' Funders succumbed to a safe cultural nostalgia, shifting priority from producing a critically challenging cinema to preserving and marketing a 'national film heritage;' and from politicised agendas to 'investment funding.' The ethos of lesbian-feminist film production thus found itself doubly at odds with 1990s enterprise culture.

Ironically, these two factors in COW's and Circles' success — their strong feminist image and their ability to attract funding — were also the prime reasons for their demise in the early nineties. Due to the high costs involved in film distribution, the relatively small audiences that exist for campaign or experimental films, and the enormous amount of work involved in generating specialist audiences, Circles and COW became heavily dependent on grant-aid for their continued existence. Their work ethic was at odds with the new enterprise culture and the development of incentive funding that emerged in the mid-late eighties. (Knight, 1992: 185)

In the circumstances, Lianne Harris of the new Cinenova company, stated the organisation's policy of "retrieving women's film distribution from its 'feminist' categorisation and placing it firmly within the film/video sector" and placing "a greater emphasis on commercial viability" by "'opening its doors' to work that has far stronger entertainment and commercial appeal" (Harris, quoted by Knight, 1992: 187).

In the early 1990s, a recent rush of queer activism in the US made Queer Cinema the funders' new toy. 'Sexuality' and 'lifestyle' were the marketable forms of lesbianism in this commercial ethos. Whilst feminism was seen as passé, lesbianism became unprecedentedly chic. But a harder-edged lesbian criticism of heterosexist culture may be less attractive to a market with a pronounced taste for the feelgood factor and widest possible appeal. It seems doubtful that 'the market' would spawn Born in Flames, A Question of Silence, or Privilege, for example — although these films still generate an energetically engaged response among lesbians and women. Furthermore, Cinenova's continued commitment to the work of black and Third World filmmakers (see Merz and Parmar, 1987, 68-9) is unlikely to be supported or furthered by commercial networks.

At the same time, however, distinctions between marginal and entertainment styles have become blurred since the 1960s and all but extinguished in the work of successful independent directors like Spike Lee, Jane Campion and Gus Van Sant. A similar narrowing of the gap between art and entertainment has taken place in marginal short-filmmaking, fostering change from experimental or campaigning films to a much lighter and quirkier style. Contemporary London lesbian audiences preferred sexy, and/or funny films, such as She Wanted Green Lawns (1989), Rosebud (1992); Sex Lies Religion (1993), and Fireworks Revisited (1994) (although British regional audiences still often find London taste offensive, preferring the more committed feminist style). But however entertaining, distribution of such films is still unlikely ever to become commercially viable. It remains a problem that commercial distributors and exhibitors, TV buyers and audiences themselves are rarely enthusiastic about 'shorts.' Marginalisation by funders, as well as aesthetic choices, mean that the overwhelming majority of lesbian-made material is in this 'short' form. Those few lesbian directors who have managed to fund features — even if they would like to place their films with a feminist distributor — need, in this new commercial environment, to place their films with mainstream distributors who are able to fund a higher-profile release for their features.

Trying to take on more 'accessible' work with more entertainment appeal means Cinenova will have to compete for work with numerous other, more commercial distributors, who may have more resources at their disposal [...] [and] even after Circles' and COW's efforts in the eighties, films by women [...] remain marginalized in Britain. (Knight, 1992: 188)

The lesbian film aesthetic had also differed markedly from that of male queers.

Lesbian film- and video-makers [...] show largely different concerns that are, for instance, more intimately linked with feminism and autobiography [...] Not only do all of the queer male filmmakers share an "out" gay identity, they have also all made feature length films which reflect a certain defiance of narrative conventions mixed with [...] camp — which is admittedly not a lesbian speciality. (Lebow, 1993: 19)

Again, as with print-media, lesbian filmmaking lost the initiative and became reactively overdetermined by a field of expectation opened out by male queer film practice. Lesbian-queer seemed a category "without a constituency" (Florence, 1994: 300). Lesbian short filmmaking associated (often not by the filmmaker but rather by critics) with Queer Cinema also registered a shift in aesthetic practice. Farthing's C4-funded Rosebud (1992) gently sends up classic art-house representational conventions for feminine sexuality (billowing lace curtains, flowing water) and replaces them with a raised eyebrow, gay-chic decor and fallen angels — all stalwart camp icons of the gay underground. Zalcock's Fireworks Revisited (1991), a spoof of Anger's underground classic, Fireworks, reworks a phallicised eroticism in terms of a humorously lesbian symbolic, metamorphosing the ejaculation of the roman candle to the dizzy gyration of a Catherine wheel.

The 1980s and 1990s have seen the setting up (with varying degrees of success) of several gay video distribution companies including the most well-known, Dangerous to Know. Home video might seem a convenient way of circulating less commercial lesbian film, and the queer companies do carry a number of lesbian shorts and features. But there are problems with home video because, unlike films shown in cinema-clubs, they have to be certificated which is both expensive and time-consuming. Over-reliance on the home-video market would restrict audiences to certificated films (and not much would be left many lesbian shorts after cutting by the censors!). This further tends towards the depoliticisation and homogenisation of the form and content of lesbian film. It is also a concern that home video bypasses public screening to lesbian audiences and cannot generate public debate in the same way. This fosters an ever-increasing distance between sites of production and consumption. Nevertheless, video's relative cheapness and ease of circulation has meant that both feminist and lesbian experimental work is now very often marketed in this format.

There is also still relatively little work by black British lesbians available. Funding organisations always tended to favour filmmakers whose work most nearly conforms to the 'high art' aesthetic values of middle-class white culture. This, effectively, favours male as well as white filmmakers. The free market has not, in Britain at least, seemed particularly effective in enabling black and/or lesbian filmmaking either. Much of the work made by black women is by lesbians but this has mainly been supported by grant-funding or by commission through 'minority' strands by Channel 4 and Film4. It was thought that Queer Cinema might open out a new recognition for lesbian work, but lesbian short films continued to be largely critically, academically, and commercially ignored. Parmar argued that the purported inclusivity of the category of queer does not represent the social reality of unequal access to resources (reported by Florence, 1994: 299). In the US, with its well-established marketplace for independent film, there has been a more "upbeat" attitude to commercialisation. Nevertheless, this context has also favoured male filmmakers. The doyenne of New Queer Cinema, Christine Vachon, came under considerable criticism for producing only "boys'" movies, and Livingstone had difficulty funding a second film even after the commercial success of Paris is Burning (Lebow, 1993: 18).

In 1993, New York magazine posited 'lesbian chic,' Roseanne cast Sandra Bernhardt in a lesbian role and even Madonna noticed lesbians (Lebow, 1993: 19). The proven commercial value of New Black and New Queer Cinemas, as well as of lesbian characters in TV sitcoms and soaps, gave producers greater confidence in the potential for the commercial success of lesbian features. To a certain extent, the mini-boom in lesbian feature production in the mid-1990s was sucked into a marketing vacuum of expectation.

The recent Queer Cinema hype has created the impression of a perceived lack of lesbian cinema. This, in turn, has created a top-down push by 'indie' producers, now in a desperate scramble to 'discover' the lesbian Todd Haynes or Tom Kalin. (Lebow, 1993: 19)

The virtually no-budget feature Claire of the Moon (1993) made nearly $1m. It was Vachon who found completion money for Go Fish (1994), the first lesbian feature to be associated with New Queer Cinema and to achieve a cultural visibility beyond lesbian audiences. Go Fish made $2.4m — nearly as much as Reservoir Dogs (Abramowitz, 1996: 84). But it was still almost ignored by mainstream media. The mainstream profitability of the 'lesbian romance' genre having already been established in the 1980s, The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love (1995) was made with somewhat higher production values and a more mainstream aesthetic, with a realist narrative and colour format. Lesbian-queer Cinema had arrived.