In the mainstream cinema industry, polyamory is rarely a central story plot, but when it is employed as an intimate arrangement between characters, it is usually irrelevant to the storyline; in some cases it is glorified as an “unconventional lifestyle”, in some latently disapproved and in some just created without any backstory.

The glorification of polyamory as merely an “artistic whim” occurs in films Henry and June (1990), Head in the Clouds (2004) and Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008), where polyamory sinks into more important film narratives of human creativity (Henry and June), war (Head in the Clouds) or a woman’s indecisiveness (Vicky Cristina Barcelona – here it is, the bi-stigma of a bisexual’s inherent inability to pick sides).

Credits: Mediapro

The latent discursive disapproval of polyamory is depicted in Threesome (1994) and Savages (2012), where protagonists are being ridiculed by other students (Threesome) or are primarily labelled as savages – their “savageness” emerges from their criminal activities – they are drug smugglers (i.e. undisciplined citizens) or polyamory (i.e. “uncivilized” intimacy).

Credits: Relativity Media

In the monogamous society (and to some extent films do reflect general societal values), poly relationships or characters in films are prone to an inevitable ending or death; relationships dissolve, some characters die. The message is clear: poly relationships are not supposed to exist in our society because of their abjection (polyamory creates displeasure in others, but also stimulates curiosity) and potential disruption of the existing social, sexual, moral and emotional orders.

However, in the German film Three (Drei, 2010), directed by Tom Tykwer, it is quite the opposite; it is the monogamous relationship that is futile and headed for death just to be resurrected as a polyamorous relationship. Three is revolved around a high-profile upper class childfree couple (Hanna and Simon), based in Berlin, who are in their early 40s, when each of them gets sexually and emotionally involved with the same man (Adam), not being aware of each other’s involvements.

Credits: Tom Tykwer

What separates Three from other, aforementioned polyamorous films?

Firstly, it is the transformation of a relationship from dyadic to triadic, a film’s central premise, which happens very organically and poetically. The futility of Hanna and Simon’s monogamous relationship is quickly explained in the first sequence of the film – they are not having sex anymore and quarrel a lot which signals that their relationship of 20 years will either dissolve or mold into something else. If this was a monogamous narrative, they would engage in adultery, an “acceptable” solution that would keep the relationship artificially alive. However, both of them will later engage in “an affair” with Adam, but none of them is being labelled a “cheater” nor is the mood of the film condemning those actions.

In any other film (Unfaithful, for example) the narrative would have been preoccupied with the crucifixion of cheaters and the restoration of monogamy. The semiotics of this film poster maintains the prevalence of monogamy as the only acceptable arrangement of intimacy through carefully positioned symbols. A husband is overlooking the “cheating” situation from above, almost godlike, a lover’s head is cut from this frame – because he is an element that should and will be eliminated, a cheating wife is positioned beneath her husband. The exclusive visibility of hetero monogamous couple is the strategic move that indicates that monogamous marriage will be restored and that the unequal dynamics of a dominant husband and submissive wife will stay intact.

Credits: Regency Enterprises

Three also defies the ageist assumption of who can be polyamorous (not only young and beautiful). Simon, Hanna and Adam are not young, they are in their 40s, and they are not too pretty, but still visually relatable. At the beginning of the film, the couple is childfree and at the end, the now poly family is expecting twins. Not only does this encourage the idea of polyamory as a more fertile relationship, it also resists the ageist notion of a woman being pregnant only if she is young/er.

One of the most important aspects in Three is the representation of bisexuality. It is men (Adam and Simon) who are bisexual and not Hanna. There is a lack of positive representations of male bisexuality that can be contributed to the overall cultural bi-invisibility. Adam as a bisexual man, comfortable with his sexuality, is more than just his sexual orientation; he is a human being with several hobbies (e.g. singing in a choir, playing football, being an avid football fan, successful at his profession, practicing karate) and good social skills. It is rare to see a portrayal of a bisexual man so realistic and positive. However, Simon, who was straight so far, must rethink his sexuality but ignorantly falls into a cultural trap of sexual binarism when he wants to redefine himself; after the second sexual encounter with Adam, he explains to Adam that he is not gay. Unfortunately, this bi-erasure is still a common cultural reaction when it comes to non-heterosexualities.

Intimate encounters with Adam leave both of them (Hanna & Simon) pleasantly confused – Hanna’s love for Simon didn’t fade despite her lust for Adam and Simon must also rethink his new sexual identity. Their fulfilled sex lives revitalised their dying monogamous relationship up to the point that they get married. Adam embodies the new relationship energy in now poly relationship.

There are a lot of symbols that indicate or imply the death of monogamous relationship and an ascendance of polyamorous one.

Death is an omnipresent theme in Three and its metaphors are encoded in the death of Simon’s mother (she had pancreatic cancer), Simon’s testicular cancer (he survives) and Hanna’s miscarriages that can be interpreted as futility of the monogamous relationship.

Credits: Tom Tykwer

Water as a symbol of rebirth is prevalent in Simon’s redesign of himself; he usually goes for a swim in the public swimming pool which is also the place where he meets Adam. Here, water  has a double meaning for Simon – he is “reborn” as a human being (still amongst the living after his cancer) with the new sexual identity (i.e. bisexual).

Credits: Tom Tykwer

There are several implications that 3 is the new form of intimacy; for example, the dance piece at the beginning of the film shows a triad, engaged with each other, “good things come in three”, said Adam when Hanna and he met for the third time and then there is an almost Amelie Poulain sequence that explains the nearly fatalistic importance of the number 3: Simon’s mother had only three months to live, but she died by taking 39 sleeping pills on September 3rd at 3:09, Simon’s sister moved to Stuttgart in 1993 and was aged 39, came to see dying mother by train at 9:30 at moonlight tariff 39 euros …

Credits: Tom Tykwer

Eventually, they do find out that they are in a triadic relationship with each other (Hanna + Simon, Simon + Adam and Hanna + Adam) and after the first shock and breaking up, they get back together, forming a poly relationship. The last scene shows their potential not just for a polyamorous relationship, but also for a poly family.

On the other hand, Three also has its weaknesses. Protagonists are quite privileged, they are white (despite the fact that the film was shot in multi-ethnic Berlin, there are no other ethnicities present but Caucasian or white), highly educated and well off (Simon is into building arts, Adam and Hanna are both Ph.D.’s.), all of them are cisgender, able-bodied and able-minded.

Three may not be a perfect film, but it manages to be a trailblazer for a more realistic and mature approach on how to represent poly relationships and families in the mainstream cinema.

To point out someone’s flaws is a weapon of microaggression and policing against someone’s personhood that does not live up to be flawless (or perfect). When a person has failed at something and is therefore self-defined and societally defined as “incompetent”, “improper” or “inadequate”, he/she/they are comprehended as a small-scale failure. Even a small-scale failure, manifested as a flaw, is not allowed in Western (although pluralistic) society, which is constantly striving for success and perfection.

Flaws can be found everywhere, because everyone’s a critic and interpersonal criticism, based on someone’s body shape, size, behaviour or taste is a self-perpetuating machine that disciplines the ones who criticize (people with internalised disciplinary regimes) and those who are criticized (people who have not yet internalised them). Flaws can be bodily-, behaviour- or fashion/art-related, but their denominator is taste or the lack of it. Taste, as Pierre Bourdieu (1984) has stated, is a cross-breed of the socio-economic (money and other monetary belongings) and cultural capital (education and social origin) and those with high amounts of both capitals are trendsetters; they define what is tasteful and what is not. A flaw is therefore a lack of taste or even worse, a bad taste that carries a classist implication – those with no money and/or education are tasteless and cannot possess impeccable taste. Otherwise, they are flawed by default.

Flaws that are bodily-related differ from the tasteful conception of how male or female body should appear in public. Scars on the body are not aesthetic and should be corrected with the help of cosmetic surgery. Boldness, shortness, man boobs and excessive body hair on men’s bodies are a sign of men’s unfamiliarity with “normal” beauty regimes for men, because being bold, short or hairy is unappealing for women and straight men, but not necessarily for gay men. Women’s bodies are framed as flawed by default (size, age, body hair, aesthetic merits and skin colour), so the highlighting of women’s bodily flaws is not needed.

Behavioural flaws are much more embedded in the gender ideology and sexism. Derogatory name-calling, such are slut, bitch, sissy, cry-baby or crazy cat lady just reaffirm that certain behaviours, mostly connected with women’s sexuality, outspokenness, men’s gender identity and singleness are considered bad because they deviate from the traditional gender arrangements (e.g. silent women and hyper masculine men).

dr. Eleanor Abernathy or “Crazy Cat Lady” (The Simpsons) Credits: Fox Channel

Fashion’s faux pas are most ridiculed flaws. Examples of “no fashion taste”: wearing (white) socks with sandals or crocs, men in feminine clothing or high heels are mocked, women without bras with visible nipples and outlining of breasts are shameful, older women who do not wear age-appropriate clothing are regarded as caricatures, showing camel toe is distasteful, wearing too much make-up is trashy, those who take pleasure in kitsch (without irony) are the uneducated “cattle” of consumers and sporting black natural hair is still viewed as unkempt. The racist and sexist implications of the latter are obvious.

Despite the fact that the dominant definition of taste is practically maintaining and reproducing itself via ideological apparatuses (e.g. family, education system, culture, media, religion), we share this dominant concept (e.g. being a cultural snob and Othering anyone who lacks any type of capital – cultural, economic, social, symbolic) up until deliberately deconstructing and defying it, because we did not create it. By being aware of being flawed (a person is culturally clueless/naive or culturally advanced/rebellious), flaws can be culturally re-written and filled with different meanings instead with those that degrade them.

One of the options is reappropriation, a linguistic and cultural process, when an existing word or label is being cleansed of its negative or unpopular connotations (for example: geek, queer, fat, crazy cat lady) by taking the standpoint of that label and reappropriate it (“take the negative meaning and change it into neutral or positive”). A person, whom society has been describing with negative evaluations, can show her/his/their power by rejecting the presumed meaning and transform it into empowering one, which is possible because words and labels are socially constructed. This only exposes the notion that meaning of the label can be challenged, and that what is considered to be negative or a flaw is not a “bad thing” and that challenging negative labels by positively reappropriating them exposes the subtle forms of discrimination (or microaggressions) to become visible and furthermore, addressable.

Here is an example of reappropriating the label “crazy cat lady”. The dominant definitions via Urban Dictionary describe crazy cat lady as “An elderly suburban widow, who lives alone and keeps dozens or more pet cats, usually many more than municipal code allows, in a small house, and refuses to give away or sell them even for the sake of the safety of the cats or herself”, “a woman, usually middle-aged or older, who lives alone with no husband or boyfriend, and fills the empty lonely void in her life with as many cats as she can collect in one place. Their homes are usually very stinky and the aforementioned woman may also very likely be white trash”, “A woman who loves her cats more than people”, “That old lady that lives down the street from you that has over a dozen cats named after each of her ex-boyfriends that have done her wrong”.

Being called crazy cat lady (CCL) is a negative and hostile label that is directed against women, who do not take part (willingly or not) in the heteronormative and speciest lifestyle. CCL is always (1) a woman (2) single/unmarried, (3) lonely by default, (4) middle-aged and older (5) with mental issues (hoarding), (6) lacking in personal hygiene, (7) economically disadvantaged and (8) loving cats. The label carries several different aspects that stigmatize CCL: sexism (only women), heteronormativity (unmarried and childfree), ableism (“crazy”, asocial), ageism (middle-aged and older), lookism (unkempt and dirty), classism (poor) and speciesism (love for cats). CCL is a patriarchal warning sign to those women who are single, still young and love animals (cats in particular), because it projects the worst case scenario for women on how to spend their lives. I can think of several scenarios that surpass being a CCL: unemployment, sexual assault, homelessness and refugeeism. CCL can also be a postmodern and desexualised version of the medieval witch – an old woman, who is living alone with cats.

To reappropriate the CCL label, individuals must identify with the label that will be socially recreated from the negative to the positive. When this occurs and the negativity of CCL has been addressed, the negative meaning starts to weaken and is in the case of CCL replaced with irony, wit and genuine (e.g. non-anthropocentric) appreciation of cats. The group identity for cat-loving persons is now easily established via social media due to its ability to distribute and produce any counter-discourse against the dominant one.

Credits: Gemma Correll

CCL is becoming an empowering, self-referential and even self-mocking part of someone’s social identity. Big part of reappropriating CCL is via art, mostly done by women artists, and fashion that vocally express this “flaw”.

Cat Meditation

So, go with the flaw. Love cats.

The western understanding of a woman’s body is – alongside with its reproductive power – also built around its aesthetic (decorative) and mobile (inactive) nature. It is expected for a girl to be pretty and a woman to be attractive, so to stay pretty/beautiful, a girl/woman should not engage in activities (sports mostly) that could ‘ruin’ her appearances. Bruises ruin skin to a degree of transforming skin colour from natural to ‘unnatural’ – blue, green, violet, yellowish. But most of all, they bluntly expose the fragility and mortality of the human body.

To gain a bruise is a positive message about body vitality and reaffirmation of the corporeal toughness for boys and men only; girls can be covered with bruises until they reach puberty. Puberty is a gender game-changer for girls, because it is assumed that a girl should abandon her free-spirit roaming and willingly submit herself to the docile young femininity – to be looked at as a ‘beautiful object’ instead of being primarily a looking subject. Bruises, scars or pimples on the body can be compared with cracks on the porcelain – they are a sign of imperfection or failure, something that is not well received in the western neoliberal society that strives for permanent success and cannot or will not see ‘defeat’ as a time to recess, recuperate or grow.

The societal imperative to be beautiful and perfect (although disguised as a woman’s choice and not an obligation) is a heavy burden in every woman’s life. Despite the fact that beauty standards vary in society, every culture and subculture has the ideal upon other members are measured and valued (e.g. too butch or too femme for a lesbian, too dark or too light for a black person, too masculine for a straight woman …). Women’s bodies should aim to be beautiful – impeccable and “bruiseless” to conform to the arbitrarily established standard(s).

Philosopher Iris Marion Young claims that adult women are caught between states of immanence (i.e. being an ‘object’ or immobile) and transcendence (i.e. being a subject or motile). Every time women are predominantly defined as immanence, their autonomy, creativity and subjectivity (e.g. voice, mind and body) are being destroyed or rejected. The model of conventional femininity does exactly that; it gently forbids any opportunity for a woman to be ‘outside’ of her inactive role if she wants to remain a feminine and beautiful insider.

When a woman engages in sports, she is expanding her spatial, motile, behavioural and physical limits and by not squeamishly avoiding the potential injuries, she is experiencing and embracing physical pain, produced by her own actions. Culturally, there is only one type of physical pain all women are allowed to participate in – childbirth, so by exploring her own pain thresholds besides the imposed one, she transgresses her gender role of a beautiful object and positions herself as an active agent of her own body, possibly covered with bruises, scars and dirt.

Not only does an adult woman, who is getting bruised, transgress her gender role of a delicate flower, she also deconstructs the dominant belief that when a woman’s body is bruised, it must be the case of domestic violence (e.g. intimate, family or elderly abuse). Bruise as an age-specific injury is quite unproblematic with pre-pubescent girls, but over time that fleshy symbol of an active life becomes an undisputable marker of an abuse. When a woman is abused, she is ultimately objectified yet her objectification is intensified with random people’s glances at her bruises and assumptions about getting them.

Bruises are and should only be “kisses” between the flesh and inanimate objects, never between two human bodies – an objectified subject and an abusive subject. But the naming of bruises as kisses is not mine. Finnish photographer Riikka Hyvönen has beautifully documented bruises of roller derby players, a now revived all-female (and feminist) sport, whose global recognisability can also be contributed to Drew Barrymore’s Whip it (USA, 2009), a film that celebrates independence, companionship, wit and women.

Babe Ruthless (Credits: Mandate Pictures)

With portraying bruises as “kisses”, the discourse of what is producing women’s bruises is changing. Instead of being exclusively embedded into a paradigm of an abuse, women’s bruises can arise from pleasurable fun.