share

Message of 'Intersexion' meant for different medium

By Max B. O'Connell
September 29, 2013 - 5:26 pm
'Intersexion,' which screened Saturday at the Syracuse University Human Rights Film Festival, contains elements that make for a good, moving story, but the subject would be better served in a form other than a documentary.

The problem with many advocacy documentaries is that not enough filmmakers ask themselves, “Does this need to be a movie?” The result is a number of well-meaning but inconsequential films whose messages would be just as well served by a TV special or an article.

Intersexion is the umpteenth example this year alone of a documentary that’s as noble as it is dull. Grant Lahood’s film follows Mani Bruce Mitchell, New Zealand’s first out intersex person. Mitchell goes around the western world meeting other people of “the third sex,” born with genitals that don’t fit neatly into the male/female gender divide.

The subjects talk about their difficulties, as many go through childhoods filled with invasive surgeries that try to make them conform to one gender or another. Some members speak of how their insecurity made them easy targets for sexual predators, or how having hormones pumped into them gave them a lifetime’s worth of health problems. Others speak of how they learned that they were initially raised as one gender, only to be switched at a young age. A happy few were lucky enough to have parents who accepted them for who they were.

Is it an interesting topic? Sure. Are the plights of intersex people moving? Absolutely. That the subjects found a support system in each other or in accepting partners is heartening, and that some of the luckier ones have a sense of humor about their situation makes some of the painful moments more palatable.

The only problem is that Intersexion isn’t actually much of a film. The film states its message of acceptance very quickly, only to repeat it over and over again. Lahood and Mitchell haven’t conceived any sort of grand architecture other than “get a bunch of people to talk about their experiences.” It makes for a lumpy, often repetitive viewing, which isn’t helped by the overreliance on visually inert talking-head interviews.

The interviews in Intersexion might make for an effective multimedia project or website. Right now, they’re just part of another documentary that doesn’t play to the advantages of its medium.

Photo courtesy of Tula Goenka.

Gavan, Thank you for your

Submitted by Max B. O'Connell on November 13, 2013 - 9:29pm.

Gavan,

Thank you for your comment- we do appreciate any feedback here, even if it is negative. I do apologize if my wording about ambiguous genitalia was offensive. There was probably a better way for me to explain that would be more accurate to how far-reaching the intersex community is. It's an oversight on my part, and I am sorry.

Regarding the film itself: I appreciate that the film meant a lot to you, and I'm always glad when a film touches someone even if it didn't work for me. And truthfully, the stories in "Intersexion" did touch me. How could they not? I remember you in the film, and your story was no exception. To some degree I'm glad that the film exists, if only to inform the world about the intersex community and advocate on their behalf.

However, my first duty in a review is to evaluate the film as a work of art (which all films are, fiction or nonfiction), and it didn't work for me on that level. You mentioned in your comment that the film is a documentary, but I believe documentaries should have the same storytelling and formal rigor as any other film. Almost every year brings at least one documentary I've loved- "The Arbor", "The Thin Blue Line", "The Times of Harvey Milk", "Capturing the Friedmans", and "Man on Wire" are among them. Some of these films use interviews. Some do not. Some are about social justice. Others are not. All have a narrative drive of some sort.

With "Intersexion", I felt that each scene by itself was fine, but that taken as a whole they didn't have the narrative momentum that I look for in films, nor were there any moments I found formally thrilling. I felt that the stories would be better served as a multimedia project, a TV special, or a series of videos than as a movie. You mentioned atheists who were once of the faith as a similar example- I fall into that group, and I'd have the same reaction to a film covering that subject if I felt it was lacking as cinema.

There was a recent discussion among a number of film critics that I respect (available on YouTube as "The Revolution Will Be Criticized: Do Film Critics Miss the Boat on Nonfiction Filmmaking?") that noted that too often, critics (even great ones) review a documentary for how important its subject matter is rather than whether it's an exciting film. I agree with their take, so if I'm mixed on a film (and my feelings about "Intersexion" are mixed, not negative), I have to be honest about my opinion.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone their reaction to "Intersexion"- if it works for them completely, and they're passionate about it, let them shout it to the skies. I hope the film does help inform the world about the reality of intersex people, and that it helps foster understanding and acceptance. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Sincerely,
Max

comments on the review from an intersex person

Submitted by Gavan Coleman (not verified) on November 13, 2013 - 10:23am.

hi! :)
firstly not all intersex people are or are depicted in this documentary as being born with ambiguous genitalia!
also this documentary IS one of the most moving and influential and fact stating documentaries on the hidden intersex reality!

lastly , even though i could go on, and on (lol)

"The only problem is that Intersexion isn’t actually much of a film(ITS A DOCUMENTARY). The film states its message of acceptance8WHAT DO YOU MEAN HERE? ITS FAR FROM A WORLD OF ACCEPTANCE LET ALONE UNDERSTANDING BUT WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS WITH GETTING THE FICTION OF A WORLD SOLELY MADE OF PINK AND BLUES1 THOUGH THERE ARE A LOT OF BLUES TO BE TALKING ABOUT AND PEOPLE ARE ANGRY(REDS)SO LETS GET TOGETHER ON THIS RATHER THAN BEING ANTI ANYTHING) very quickly, only to repeat it over and over again8YOU MEAN MAKING A POINT BY REPEATING IT IN MANY DIFFERENT FORMS??). Lahood and Mitchell haven’t conceived(YOU ARE RIGHT; THEY ARE JUST ADDRESSING POINTS ABOUT NATURE AND THE WAY IN WHICH MEDICAL SOCIETY HAS LIKED TO FORM HUMANS AND FORM OPINIONS AND TALK LIKE THEY ARE FACTS!!!!THE AMAZING "TRUTHS" OF BIOLOGICAL NATURAL VARIETIES OF PEOPLE!) any sort of grand architecture other than “get a bunch of people(A BUNCH OF INTERSEX PEOPLE; WHO MOST IN THE WORLD KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SO ITS A GOOD IDEA9 to talk about their experiences(LIKE MOST INFORMATIVE DOCUMENTARIES DO EVEN IF IT IS UPSETTING TO THE STOMACH AND THE MIND; SIMILAR TO ATHEISTS WHO WERE ONCE OF THE FAITH!!).” It makes for a lumpy, often repetitive viewing, which isn’t helped by the overreliance on visually inert talking-head interviews."

I THINK THIS PERSON WHO WROTE THIS NEEDS SOME SERIOUS CHATTING WITH!
so....... i am here!
;)

Post new comment

* Field must be completed for your comment to appear on The NewsHouse
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.