Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Little Lady Fauntleroy - C4

Page: 1(2)

11:28 / 29.06.04

Well you're right that you can't just blame the medics - it's well recognised that many sex change patients either keep quiet about their doubts and problems, although not necessarily to willfully deceive their doctor. I'm sure if there was a psychiatrist involved that Mama Harries groomed Lauren with the correct responses - just as his/her father had 'tutored' him on antiques.

From the footage shown on the documentary I got the impression the surgery was done over here. I suspect you're right that it was private though. They were such a bunch of snobs - the mock mock-tudor house - I can't imagine them using the NHS if they had any choice.

Someone should be sent in to deprogramme those 'kids'. Never have a seen a better example of "They fuck you up your mum and dad" - well apart from the Royal Family. Rose and Fred West's kids seem far more well adjusted.

15:51 / 29.06.04

Got to be wary of the editing, I guess, because Allen did a fine job of shockumentary, hence my enjoyment no doubt of the spectacle. However, that last scene seemed the most telling in the show. You get the impression people just back off from this family in the real world and their assumptions and values are never really assailed, other than by the general hostility of neighbours. So, when Allen, mighty bringer of tv camera vailidation to their family circus, starts to punch back verbally, Lauren just absents herself and discusses nail polish with bystanders.

She spoke throughout the piece about her desire to leave and live on her own, when she wasn't polishing Mama's halo and suckling. Does seem like impulsive and extreme responses to situations that distress her might be her preferred option and that finding wayward sexuality too difficult to dovetail into the family myth with comfort, the extreme choice to transition to female, undertaken with an impulsivity which would disbar others from that choice, might have been just the thing for her.

And that, in a couple of years, something equally extreme and impulsive, like Ganesh' tiger-woman scenario, might appeal to her.

Still puzzled how such a bunch of dysfunctional people have managed to pay the bills and fund their wild schemes all these years. Some suckers somewhere must be paying for it.

23:54 / 29.06.04

The scene with Lauren's acting 'lesson' looked very staged. I really can't believe that her student wasn't drafted in especially for that little dialogue.

Was there an explanation about why the family were recording Allen? The only answer I've come up with was that they wanted to know exactly what had been asked in each interview, so that they could alter their behaviour to suit - it'd fit with their control-freakery, but it still seems a little bit random.

07:16 / 30.06.04

Coming in late, I know : watched it on video last night, and my general dismay was much the same as other posters, I think – I remember Harries from the 80s, but this left me alternately feeling sorry for the family/wildly contemptuous of their shared delusion.

Moving to the format of the programme, I liked the way the commentary referred to the standard aspects of TV documentaries, and even to advert breaks, but as it went along I couldn’t help but think that the commentary (especially the line that went something on the lines of “Now I don’t know much about psychiatry – unless you count the four years I spent in Vienna with Sigmund Freud – but…”) reminded me of something by Victor ‘TV Offal’ Lewis-Smith, as did the use of crashing musical chords for effect. And at the end of the credits, lo and behold VL-S and his cohort Paul Sparks featured, as the show was made by their production company. I also noted that Allen was listed as Presenter, but I don’t think I saw a ‘written by’ or similar credit, which makes me wonder if Lewis-Smith and Sparks may have steered it quite heavily. It certainly resembled their work.

Anyway, interesting viewing, and nice to see a presenter actually have a go to their subject in such an antagonistic fashion. I think I’d like to see that approach applied to other issues on a more regular basis.

07:42 / 30.06.04

producer. VLS est une grande cunt, c'est vrai.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:44 / 30.06.04

I think possibly Lewis-Smith's obsession with television mean that another interesting point was lost here - this struck me as obviously about self-aggrandisement, self-delusion and the desire for fame, but also very much about class. The Harries family seem to want to be upper middle class, but have only the sketchiest of ideas about how to go about it. So, they create a fake mock-tudor cottage, because they do not understand that it is the distance from poor people that is importance, not the black planks across the walls. They see that the upper middles have degrees and professional qualifications, so they send off for degrees and award themselves qualifications, and so on.

10:55 / 30.06.04

The rumour is that Lauren was assessed by an NHS psychiatrist.

11:42 / 30.06.04

The rumour is that Lauren was assessed by an NHS psychiatrist.

Well, having been in the position of assessing such individuals, I was giving this some thought, specifically: would I have given the green light for going on to irreversible gender reassignment?

Firstoff, I suspect it'd be a trickier judgment call than is necessarily apparent from the Little Lady Fauntleroy documentary. The family pathology is screamingly, in-yer-face apparent onscreen, but perhaps less evident in a one-to-one setting - particularly where one party is articulate and sly (and perhaps parentally schooled) enough to dissemble and selectively emphasise in order to bypass the 'gatekeeper'. Also, despite defining new extremes of familial enmeshment/boundary-blurring, Lauren (and, for that matter, the rest of her family) doesn't present obvious psychiatric illness (as opposed to personality/maturational fucked-upness).

I like to think that the oddities in her 'transsexual narrative' (late onset of cross-dressing; relatively minor distaste for male genitalia; comparitive absence of pronounced childhood drive to be female; near-incidental/opportunistic reasons for seeking referral) and family/social/employment history would've tickled my pspidey-senses - but I cannot, hand on heart, guarantee that these couldn't be sufficiently well-faked or glossed over to allay my suspicions. I think I'd have been cautious, would've wanted at least one work reference (which, presumably, would've been provided by her parents in their 'other names'), and would've recommended a third opinion (because, in order to progress to endocrine and/or surgical treatment, she really ought to have had a minimum of two psychiatric opinions) but I'm not sure I'd have point-blank disallowed oestrogens.

Bottom line is, with the best will in the world, it's impossible to provide a completely impermeable screen for individuals with the will and resources to falsify their background. There's only so much one can check...

Our Lady Has Left the Building

18:12 / 11.07.04

This weeks Closer has an interview where she promises to talk about her fucked up sex life. Wasn't enough to entice me to part with a quid. Does anyone know anyone who admits to reading Closer?

01:35 / 02.09.04

beat on the brat

beat on the brat

beat on the brat with a baseball bat

you guys have no business making assertions.

I saw a documentary on Manson. I guess I know Charlie Manson. I guess I know Squeaky Fromme. I guess I know Jim Henson.

you have come to a few conclusions supported by your own prejudice.

like you know that the Harries disaprove of homosexuality and approve more of homosexuality.

if Lauren really did decide to live as a woman for reasons other than the classical ones so what. you have decided to get all essentialist for some reason.

if.

just if...

...you have it right.

if Lauren decided to garner more media interest... and tell me the media would not perk up with interest... why can't she.

if...

just if...

...you know her story.

male to female transsexual stories can always mine a rich vein of comedy as long as you pick the right stooge

or global village idiot

burlesque

ritual abasement

beat on the brat

05:32 / 02.09.04

you guys have no business making assertions.

Please explain why not. This is a discussion forum after all.

like you know that the Harries disaprove of homosexuality and approve more of homosexuality.

eh? approve and disappove of homosexuality?

if Lauren decided to garner more media interest... and tell me the media would not perk up with interest... why can't she.

She can. Why can't the people on Barbelith talk about that Ria? I'm having trouble following your ire. What specifically is irking you? That some people think she had the sex change for the wrong reasons? What's wrong with discussing that? Please elaborate.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:30 / 02.09.04

It's as if the people of Barbelith had actually beat her up with a baseball bat!

Only not.

10:32 / 02.09.04

Ria - have you actually seen the documentary that is the subject of this thread? I'm just curious since your profile places you in Massachusetts, and this show was broadcast on C4 in the UK. Has it recently be broadcast in the Massachusetts area?

13:10 / 02.09.04

beat on the brat

beat on the brat

beat on the brat with a baseball bat

Alternatively:

Discuss the show

Discuss the show

Discuss the show on an Internet fo

rum.

Have you seen the documentary in question, Ria?

14:39 / 02.09.04

typo above.

meant to write "approve of her transsexuality, disapprove of her homosexuality."

whether or not I have seen the documentary makes no difference.

I don't need to have FARENHEIT 911 to have an opinion on war and capitalism.

14:48 / 02.09.04

No, but in order to vitriolically criticise other peoples' opinions on a documentary on Lauren Harries' family, it helps if you've seen that documentary on Lauren Harries' family.

pointless and uncalled for

14:51 / 02.09.04

No, but you would need to have seen it to have an opinion on the particular parts of war and capitalism portrayed therein. After all this documentary isn't about all instances of transexuality and the family life surrounding it. It's about a particular case and a particular set of family circumstances.

To comment on an individual case, under the caveat of it's portrayal in a documentary, is not to comment on every single case ever. It's a clear and pertinent distinction that is particularly valid here.

Even you yourself allude to the point that not all cases are the same. Or did I misread you and they are all exactly alike?

14:59 / 02.09.04

whether or not I have seen the documentary makes no difference.

It rather does make a difference in a thread discussing that documentary rather than say a thread on transgender issues in general. The place for a discussion on transgender issues in general would be one of the many such threads in the headshop, rather than here.

I'd also add that it is inadvisable for you cast aspersions about what you term 'assertions' if you haven't even seen the documentary to see if the opinions stated in this thread are indeed assertions or are assessments based on information contained within that documentary. By the by, do feel free to correct me if indeed you have indeed seen the documentary.

to talk about you guys have no business making assertions about a documentary they have not

that I assume you haven't seen from your response, please correct me if I am wrong

15:32 / 02.09.04

none of us have knowledge enough of the people involved to make a decision. I use generalities because in the absence of specific knowledge we have to rely on generalities.

Lauren Harries has not changed her mind. she has not stated that she made the wrong choice. unless or until she does we can content ourselves that she has made the right choice.

put another way, I think she knows her own mind better than any of you. c'mon. vicarious experience. real experience. know the difference.

17:34 / 02.09.04

none of us have knowledge enough of the people involved to make a decision.

I expect that's why none of us is making a "decision". On the other hand, we have quite enough knowledge (and sufficient entitlement) to form an opinion on the family in the documentary - having watched it an' all.

she has not stated that she made the wrong choice. unless or until she does we can content ourselves that she has made the right choice.

We can, however, form an opinion that she may live to regret her choice - and we may eventually be proved right or wrong in that opinion.

put another way, I think she knows her own mind better than any of you.

If you'd seen the programme in question (and feel free to correct me if you have), you might well doubt her capacity - within that particular family structure - to have been allowed to develop her own mind.

c'mon. vicarious experience. real experience. know the difference.

Sure, it's like faked versus genuine Real Life Test.

Opinion. "Decision". Know the difference.

19:09 / 02.09.04

"If you'd seen the programme in question (and feel free to correct me if you have), you might well doubt her capacity - within that particular family structure - to have been allowed to develop her own mind."

you have reached a consensus on what the documentary says but like I said... art versus life.

"Sure, it's like faked versus genuine Real Life Test."

it really does not matter to me whether she had a Real Life Test. LH had her surgery two years ago and lives as a woman. you could consider that her RLT.

19:29 / 02.09.04

And, like I said, you haven't even seen it - so you haven't the barest clue what's "life" here, what's "art" and what's "consensus".

Kinda pointless talking about it with you. So I won't.

15:20 / 04.10.05

Meant to link to this a few weeks back. While I wouldn't wish even a brat to be beaten on with a baseball bat (ahem), I suspect the attack was motivated by more than simple transphobia - just as I suspect the planned moved to Los Angeles isn't just about escaping such violence.

Slightly odd to see Harries refer to gender issues as "my sexuality"...

15:34 / 04.10.05

The Sun’s coverage of the original attack was interesting in that they steadfastly refused to use feminine pronouns. Now, I know she got the ‘Portugeezer’ stuff, but BB5’s Nadia was never referred to as ‘he’ was she? Make me wonder what makes Lauren different, in their minds.

15:59 / 04.10.05

Perceived class? Harries and her family made a point of emphasising the degree to which they considered themselves 'better' - socially, intellectually - than their council estate neighbours. I can see that sort of old-fashioned snobbery getting up the Sun's nose, and their deciding she's Bad Trans as a result.

16:04 / 04.10.05

Alternatively, they could be picking up on a 'phoney' element in Harries' self-presentation. The Keith Allen documentary portrayed her as developmentally stunted (by that weeeird family), attention-hungry and always performing. I wasn't convinced at the time that she didn't ring true as genuinely trans (and certainly hasn't fulfilled a Real Life Test), and the "my sexuality" comment worried me further. Perhaps the Sun's (consciously or unconsciously) responding to that stageyness?

admiral sausage

17:02 / 04.10.05

Ahh Lauren Harries, She ( I suppose) grew up quite near to where I was brought up, about 3 streets up the hill from my mum's house, which wasn't that posh an area. I would describe the family as eerrr... aspirational, they managed to get James into Cardiff High, which is perceived as the best school in Cardiff, as it is in a very rich area, I don’t think he lasted too long there, as his parents had turned him into a walking target for every bully in Cardiff.
From the seeing the documentary the family have moved to an estate in Llanedyn, if that were the case then their mansion would stick out like a sore thumb. As for perceived class their entrepreneur business man Dad ran "outrageous Stripper grams" the bloke who lived opposite my mum converted a VW beetle into a golden beach buggy with "outrageous Stripper grams" painted on the side, it used to be parked outside the Harries' house. The Dad also burned down little James's antique shop for the insurance money, for which he was convicted. Classy.

17:03 / 04.10.05

Hmmm, yeah. It seemed very pointed, you know? And at odds with her role in the story qua victim.
Maybe it is her phoniness. I can't find the article now (although I reckon it was the NOTW rather than The Sun, come to think about it), but I think something was made of the earlier, discredited, claims of a prodigious knowledge of antiques. It's possible that her transexuality is seen (along with her 'doctorate' in 'Metaphysics') as just another fraud.

17:07 / 04.10.05

That's interesting, sausage.
I think the sore-thumb mansion featured in the programme, didn't it? They certainly seemed to enjoy drawing attention to their difference (self-perceived superiority).

17:08 / 04.10.05

I suspect it may well be another "fraud", albeit one which Harries and her family have invested a degree of belief...

admiral sausage

17:21 / 04.10.05

Nut job parents trying to get some media attention via their children, thusly fucking them up for life. The Dad tried to sue the government, from jail for mis-management of the countries economy. Why would someone attempt this ? it was bound to fail, could it be to gain a bit more media attention to launch his new venture when he gets out ?
Lauren was educated at home (by his Mum), after leaving Cardiff High, so obviously had little contact with other kids raised by less mad parents. Youv'e got to feel sorry for her.

Page: 1(2)