But I’m A Cheerleader vs. “Casual Representation”
But I’m A Cheerleader vs. “Casual Representation”
a fleshed out and confirmed character. another fleshed out and confirmed character. but what makes these two characters different? and, what small feature about them divides the queer media community?
“You are who you are, the only trick is not getting caught”
A bubblegum daydream of a film, But I’m A Cheerleader is THE go-to campy romance film. Good, Christian cheerleader Megan is decided to be “A Gay” by her friends and family, and gets sent to True Directions, a conversion-boot-camp of sorts. At True Directions, she meets a cast of stereotypical gay characters. The French-born emo, the butch softball player, the flailing thespian, etc. The most important of which being the sardonic, indelicate lesbian who Megan finds herself increasingly attracted to, Graham. Megan and Graham learn about themselves and each other, exploring their love in perhaps the most taboo, “straight-washed”1 place to do so, all the while maintaining a light-hearted tone (both in the story sense and the fact that the film is very visually playful).
If you’re femme, I’d wager that there’s an 85% chance you’ve either heard of or have watched the film. Even as I was formatting this piece, a friend came up to me in the school library and exclaimed “oh! But I’m A Cheerleader!”2 Despite its exaggerated, or aforementioned stereotypical/campy characters, a grounded accuracy can be found. Even compared to current media (or perhaps even exemplified for a reason we’ll get to soon), But I’m A Cheerleader is extraordinarily blatant with its characters for the late 90s.
I watched the film for the first time when I barely understood myself, watching it again when I still barely understand myself (this time just with better phraseology) brings forth the idea of “casual representation.” Or, when a character in a piece of media is shown to be of a minority (in our case, we’re focusing on being LGBTQ+), but not lingered upon besides what’s necessary. Their characteristic or belonging to a marginalized group does not take over as their primary characteristic– they are not reduced to it. This idea rarely applies to pieces of media in which the primary focus is their marginalization. However, the problem with that is, well, to paraphrase my dear and brilliant friend/mentor/cousin Kat, “so you just want a character?” It’s not so much a crucial issue as it is a terminology mishap. Casual representation is great for normalization, but again, would a character just being a character not have the same effect?
Perhaps it’s wrong to compare apples and oranges in the sense that But I’m a Cheerleader is a rom-com focusing on the gay experience where other pieces of media may place innuendos. Still, in comparison to our contemporary, real world where real people “queer-baiting” exists alongside genuine queerbaiting, But I’m a Cheerleader has stood the test of time and seems to be part of the few doing representation right.
Thank you so so much for reading AuxComp and joining me on my first independent study post! It’s not polished, but I don’t think anything I write will ever reach my level of perfectionism lol. I appreciate everyone for sticking around xx
If you enjoyed this post, make sure to subscribe for free to directly support my work. Please share with your eighth grade film teacher, your local lover of heart shaped carabiners, or someone who is strangely hateful towards anteaters… and of course, anyone you think would also enjoy this piece :+)
Further Reading, Viewing, Listening
Who Is Queerness For?, charlie squire via evilfemale.blog
Do Words Mean Anything Anymore?, charlie squire via evilfemale.blog
Beloved: A ButchFemme Zine, beloved staff via belovedzine.com
Glass Vase Cello Case, tattle tale via youtube.com/olgadorable
I made up this word, I’m sure it has an actual term lol
Shortly after, she inquired about the Sappho citation in my bio from Anne Carson’s If Not, Winter.