Robin Wood’s “Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic”

Robin Wood’s “Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic,” uses part personal narrative and anecdotes, with a discussion of film criticism, and reviews of film and filmmakers. Wood uses what he believes to be a responsible gay criticism to discuss the meaning of criticism, and the work of Renoir, Bergman, and Howard Hawkes. Considered one of the first queer film critics, this article is historically important for queer studies of film, but also interesting in its own discussion of films.

First, Wood seeks to distinguish to groups he finds on polar opposites of the critical spectrum, that is those who ignore queerness entirely with emphasis on normative aspects of film, and those who seek to further “gay” causes. Wood make reference to his own previous work, which sought to ignore gayness in films as part of an attempt to hide his own sexuality. This makes his easiness to criticize those that further gay rights problematic. Wood is still clinging to a kind of self destructive conservatism that is not entirely warranted. As anyone can say a broader purpose of queer studies, like race studies, is to broaden our understanding of current sexual categories which are not fixed, but on the contrary culturally constructed. Whether intentionally or not, this furthers the inherent voices of the gay movement by supporting a claim that normality is subjective. Wood then claims that sexuality and ideology need to be distinguished as different categories. Critics should not attempt to equate non-normative with normative, but instead show how normative structure repress minorities.

Wood then focuses a lens on films to show how a gay critical approach should function. Wood claims that Jean Renoirs’ The Rules of the Game, shows a changing world influenced by Renoirs prepossession with impressionism, and the use of triangular relationships. Wood makes an excellent point that usually relationship triangles are presented to give a character a choice between individuals. This structure cannot avoid supporting the normative family and love structure. In Renoirs films though  he uses a female character with about 5 men. Controversy exists about whether the film is satire or demonstrating a repressive system. Wood focuses on the evolving social dynamics and changing pairs, which creates a space for experimentation. Wood discusses how the style and method of the film reinforce the unclear couplings in the film. Wood claims Renoir has a kind of promiscuity in his directing, focus vacillating between one character to another, exit and entrance, and changing the focus in scenery. Although the film does not show sex overtly, it is inherent in the plot of the film. This allows the film to transcend morals or norms.

After showing Renoirs subversive film, Wood updates his previous views on film director Bergman. Wood shows how Bergman has maid the claim that he has no ideology because he does not have one to begin with. I agree with Wood, that consciousness is not exclusive to presenting culturally constructed meaning in artistic forms, such as film or writing. Wood then discusses the work of Howard Hawkes. His film’s are occasions for cross-dressing, which Wood feels can be connected to the classical role reversal narrative.

Robin Wood can be viewed as a foundational critic in queer film studies. His popularity and scholarly work have added to the knowledge of queer studies, and made the case for the importance of studying film’s for non-normative identities and sexualities. His personal narrative elements are necessary to explain his large change in opinions, although it is still a bit jarring to have such access to a critics personal life. As a stylistic device, I believe it lessens Wood’s arguments, as he clearly uses his personal experiences and life to influence his opinions on films. I believe he is attempting to combat this idea in this article, however it is not successful or clear. Perhaps a quick section discussing his personal life, only once, would have made his arguments better, instead of inserting various anecdotes throughout. Despite, these questionable elements, the article is still extremely historically important, and his review of The Rules of the Game, immediately captivated my attention.