QUEER CINEMA: RANKED!

 
What is “queer cinema”? Is it a genre? A movement? A useless label? Perhaps it is a body of work with common themes centering on the queer experience. Or is it cinema primarily written/directed by LGBTQ artists? Must it center queer characters and narratives or is it something more abstract than that? Is it any movie with a gay or trans person in it?

These are the questions I will be ignoring in this video/article and instead leading you on a goofy little romp through queer movies.

I think examining the concept of “queer cinema” with too much scrutiny is pointless to be honest. Like, is Mulholland Drive Queer Cinema? The central romance is between two women, true, but it is the oeuvre of David Lynch, a straight man. Is it an example of the male gaze, a fetishization of lesbian romance? Well, maybe a little? Obviously, there is no denying that it is a beautiful film, and it very much passes the Bechdel test. And its exploration of psycho-sexual deviance and trauma is certainly adjacent to “queer theming”. I guess I personally would define “queer cinema” as films that somehow center queer perspectives. 

But, I do feel like “queer cinema” to me at least, kind of entails the heavy involvement of actual queer people. Yes, a work in isolation may have all the trappings of queer cinema on paper, but if no queers were involved, then how queer can it really be? But this is very difficult to verify and becomes a slippery slope of outing people. So, I won’t be focusing too hard on the personal identities of the creators.

I don’t know. What I do know, is in my search for movies to discuss for this video, I realized that queer cinema is a much smaller genre (if it can even be called a genre) than I had thought. There are not that many queer movies that are on my list…

In the interest of making this video/article fun and fluffy and easy-- let’s go with a tier list, shall we? You may be wondering, what is the criteria for these rankings? There is None. It is literally just what I like the best. Keep in mind, this is just MY opinion and it’s super subjective, but you know… uh if you wanna hear yet another white guy word vomit his thoughts about “cinema” but this time with a bit of zest, this one’s for you, champ.

Paris is Burning

    Released to great acclaim in 1990 and filmed by Jennie Livingston (who is a white genderqueer lesbian) over the course of the prior decade, during the throes of the AIDS crisis, Paris is Burning may just be the most monumental film in queer history. It’s a documentary about the queer and primarily black and Latino ballroom culture of the mid to late 20th century. The film has generated a lot of praise and a lot of controversy over the years, and we are still grappling with its legacy. Famous Black feminist scholar, bell hooks, wrote a well-known critique of the film upon its release wherein she claims that the politics of the film “played out in ways that are both progressive and reactionary” (hooks, 149), which surely is true of nearly any documentary. I don’t claim to be the arbiter of the queer community, and my experiences of race and class privilege are obviously the lens through which I see this movie. But, regardless of what you think about Paris is Burning, it is a deeply important historical text which documents a history that is being increasingly pushed into the shadows by the reactionary right. I won’t spend too much time on a deep analysis of the subjectivity of the film and its ethics or on refuting every point that I disagree with in bell hooks’ writing, but I did want to address it a bit. 
 

One common critique of the film is that it was exploitative of its subjects in multiple ways. Livingston has had to address these claims many times, especially after multiple (eventually dropped) lawsuits asking for greater compensation initiated by some of the subjects. In the end, thirteen of the film’s “stars” got some portion of $55k.

Yes, Livingston was not an organic part of the community which she was documenting, and yes, Livingston was propelled into notoriety and success relative to many of the film’s subjects who remained struggling. However, given the mixed responses from the actual people featured in the film [SOURCES], I don’t think it’s that black and white. In Livingston’s words, “I didn’t go to film school. I don’t have a film education, and I never suggested that I did. I took one summer class, and I shot that one ball which is not in the finished film. I never said ‘Babe, I’m gonna make you a star.’ I went in and said, ‘I’m interested, will you talk to me?’ I honestly, to this day, do not believe that anybody who signed those release forms was incapable of understanding what it meant, nobody was illiterate; some people were college educated. Plus, most of the people in the film had spent a lot of time with me before the bulk of the footage got shot” (Clark).

Given that the film was A. a documentary with no expectation of compensation stated at the time of production when everyone signed the release forms and B. only grossed a total of $3 million at the box office, much of which, I’m sure, had to go to distributors, producers, crew, etc., I think this at least makes sense (Clark). Obviously the subjects of the film could have used more money, and I wish the film’s success had done more for them materially. But, to me, the making of this movie doesn’t seem like a clear cut case of a person using their power and privilege to profit from those who are more marginalized. See this interview to read more on Livingston’s film practices in her own words (Maclay). And Livingston has actually done a lot to give back to the community both during the AIDS crisis as an ACT UP activist and more recently, raising thousands for charities like the Ali Forney Center which provides resources to LGBT youth of color (Clark).

The film has also been criticized, especially by hooks, as exploitative in the sense that the ballroom scene is treated as a “spectacle” (which I mean, ballroom is inherently a spectacle, but I understand what she means). Hooks makes the claim that Paris “celebrates” a “brutal imperial ruling-class capitalist patriarchal whiteness” (hooks, 149) . She makes the movie out to be an ethnographic exploitation film for rich whites to gawk at and laugh at these communities, saying that Livinsgton is positioned as a “virtuous white woman daring to venture into a contemporary ‘heart of darkness’ to bring back knowledge of the natives” (hooks, 151). To be sure, many audiences did receive it this way. Hooks says “Watching the film with a black woman friend, we were disturbed by the extent to which white folks around us were ‘entertained’ and ‘pleasured’ by scenes we viewed as sad and at times tragic. Often individuals laughed at personal testimony about hardship, pain, loneliness (hooks,154)”. Wow that sounds… awful? I couldn’t imagine how that would feel to hear laughter at the expense of the movie’s subjects with whom you share a marginalized identity.

However, I don’t think the film celebrates upper class whiteness or “white femininity” as much as certain aspects of ballroom itself, unfortunately, kinda do that. In fact, the film offers a discussion of the role that the image of the well kept white woman plays as an icon in these communities. The film and the people within it are not uncritical of this facet of ballroom cultures. They are aware of this and engage with these aspects in a complex way, as hooks herself admits when she praises the reflective narration of Dorian Carey (hooks, 155).

 And yeah, Livingston may be an “outsider” to the communities she filmed, but bell hooks is also an “outsider”, as many responding scholars are quick to point out. I noticed when re-reading her chapter after a few years that she actually expresses some regressive and gender essentialist views including kind of implying that drag itself is an inherently patriarchal and misogynistic practice (hooks, 148). She misgenders the late trans woman Venus in it too, and that was not just like “oh well it was a different time” because no one else in the film ever called Venus anything but a woman and she made it quite clear how she wanted to be seen. 
 

There is much more I could say on the bell hooks chapter specifically, but at this point… God this is turning into a video about bell hooks. So I’ll wrap it up with this excerpt from another interview with Livingston:

AZ: bell hooks has criticised the film as being exploitative and too focussed [sic.] on the spectacle side of this subculture. How would you respond to that?

JL: She felt the identities in the film were not resonating with the white audience, that they were othered and therefore othering her. She also felt the ball world itself wasn’t politically in a direction that she would like. It was a kind of personalised community, that she didn’t like politically. And that’s fine, I can’t argue with that. What I have an issue with, is that she talks about white critics who got it wrong. She never acknowledged the popularity with queer black critics. She didn’t see how valuable the film was to queer black audiences, she didn’t acknowledge they needed a hit. So it’s fine to say ‘I as a straight black woman have issues with the film’ but I didn’t think it was entirely cool to silence the black and Latinx queer people who gravitated towards the film and got a lot of sustenance from it. 

And a lot of people did get sustenance from it, including the Afro-Latino, queer writer of the show Pose which is heavily inspired by this film.

IDK, like for a time, I felt guilty about how much this movie changed my life and how much I loved it. I felt betrayed when I first had to consider the possibility that it could have been exploitative. Over time, I have come to peace with this aspect of the film. I can admit that there are less than savory dynamics surrounding the making and reception of this movie where it seems like mostly white, privileged consumption of both the suffering and spectacular images of mostly black and brown queer people. People who did not always benefit as much as they should have from the film. But overall, it is still a huge entry in film history and in queer history. It’s still very close to my heart. And I wish only the best to the folks who were involved.

    
I Saw the TV Glow

I watched I Saw the TV Glow in an early screening with some friends at an indie theatre and Jane Schoenburn did a Q&A afterwards. It was fucking awesome. Going in, I had no idea about this movie other than it was a trans allegory and it was a surrealistic indie flick. Those things were definitely true. I ended up crying during this one, and I don’t often… do that? Honestly, it was quite relatable but more so than my own experience, I was thinking about my boyfriend’s because he transitioned later in life than me, and I feel like that’s kind of the vibe… with like pushing it down for so long and the whole “There’s still time” thing.

I really admire Schoenburn’s style and their exploration of media and technology as a channel of identity. In the words of Payton McCarty-Simas, “TV Glow's meditation on media fandom as an unstable lifeline for queer adolescents is a tragic portrait of potentialities never-quite-reached.” And yeah, I hadn’t really thought too deeply about that before, but with both depictions of the Pink Opaque and even the diegetic musical numbers at that bar where adult Owen and Maddy reconnect, it seems to evoke the importance of media as something for people (especially queer people) to grab onto. It certainly was–and is–for me. To quote again, “Owen and Maddy's friendship is made more intimate by its mediation through shared parasocial obsession; they rarely speak; rather Maddy's tapes come with scrawled notes (shown on screen) whose tone perfectly capture the high-octane confessionality of a teenage diary”.

It was a really powerful viewing experience for me, so it's definitely going at the top of my list- S TIER. Honestly, no idea why this movie was utterly ignored by awards season when it’s exactly the kind of artsy, profound, and “relevant” shit they would theoretically eat up. Are they really not ready to acknowledge a trans director? That feels fucking dumb… Like Emilia goddamn Perez gets a million BAFTAS and an Oscar but… whatever.

Of course I love Shiva Baby. How could I not? It is so… Jewish. And gay. And cunty. And just like funny and sad and fantastic. Side note: how the fuck is Rachel Sennott not Jewish? This is potentially the biggest mystery and, dare I say, betrayal I have suffered.
Tongues Untied

Aired on PBS in 1989, Tongues Untied is a movie by Marlon Riggs which delves into the unique intersection of racialized and gendered experiences of queer Black men. Tongues Untied is an experimental, poetic sort of video-essay type film. Combining the art of spoken word with the grit and texture of videotape, it revels in the unapologetic depiction of gay black sexuality, pain, and hope.
Looking for Langston

Isaac Julien’s Looking for Langston also is a film about gay black men and it was also released in 1989. It is an ethereal, lyrical, black and white film which recreates vignettes about poet Langston Hughes in an abstract, semi-narrative way. It is a really visually beautiful film.
Everything Everywhere

As the hype for this movie has died down, it’s easy to look back at it and be like wait this actually wasn’t that good, just remembering bits out of context, it seems corny. But I remember crying during this movie. It is deeply unique, funny, and heartfelt. It is able to speak on the experiences of Asian Americans and immigrants in general regarding assimilation, cultural change, etc. while also being fast paced, action packed, and very funny. It’s all centered on a mother’s journey to accept her lesbian daughter and how that prompts a deep self reflection for that mother. And I think it’s a really cool choice to make the mother and not the daughter the protagonist and the character who we get to see most deeply.

But I’m a Cheerleader

 This shit is an icon of queer cinema. It is a MASTERCLASS in effectively using camp (both in a figurative and literal sense, as it takes place at a conversion therapy summer camp for teens) as an artform which enhances the movie without taking away from its seriousness. It’s directed by Jamie Babbit, and it is her debut film as hard as that is to believe based on its immense success within the queer community. Though apparently upon its release, it really flopped. It’s so funny–I mean RuPaul plays a sexually repressed football coach at a straight-camp. Natasha Leone, the most lesbian-coded straight woman, plays the main character, a lesbian teen who ironically learns to accept herself at the homophobia camp. And it’s just really, really good.

Jennifer’s Body

I mean it’s a horror comedy with alt-rock/emo vibes and bisexual overtones. What’s not to love about this shit? I absolutely adore director Karyn Kusama’s work, and this is my fave. It’s aesthetically cohesive, and its fossilization of that 2010s high school culture but with a unique twist is very fun. And it does actually have things to say about women’s sexuality and experiences of misogyny. Meghan Fox is just killer in it.

The Watermelon Woman

The passion project of Cheryl Dunye, The Watermelon Woman is a fiction film in the style of an autobiographical documentary. It explores the experiences of black lesbians in a way that is both serious and funny. It “Addresses the serious political issues of the lack of visibility of black lesbians in film, in a comedy, thus avoiding the emphasis on suffering and despair that characterized films about lesbians” (Mennel, 47/69). Another really cool thing about this film is that when you’re watching it, you really don’t know how much of it is staged or made-up. I, for one, was under the impression that the actress who the fictionalized version of Ms. Dunye focuses on, simply known as “The Watermelon Woman” was a real historical figure. It is not until the end credits that read “Sometimes you have to create your own history. The Watermelon Woman is fiction.” that I realized she is not real in a literal sense. In general Dunye excels at blurring the lines between history and fantasy, reflecting on the medium of film–or in this case, video–itself in a very reflexive yet unpretentious way. Great movie!

    
The Handmaiden 

Written and directed by Park Chan-Wook, it’s billed on wikipedia as a “South Korean erotic historical psychological thriller film” which while a bit of a mouthful is certainly accurate. I fucking love this movie. It’s stunning and entrancing in every sense. I was glued to the screen for its entire two and a half hour duration. While it’s mostly highly critically acclaimed, I found this one review on Rotten Tomatoes that kinda stuck in my mind. “It is a male-gazey exploitative knock off of the British mini-series, Fingersmith, based off of the novel by Sarah Waters — a real lesbian who wrote for women. This version caters to the most boring and predictable demographic of all — men.” Is this true? I am not sure. There are also plenty of women (and queer women at that) who love this movie. I am a man. And I liked it, but did feel a little aware of the male gaze so to speak when watching all those gratuitous sex scenes. THE BELLS! If you know, you know. Shrug emoji. I like it.

Carol

This movie I also watched very recently. I think it is a really good film, and I did enjoy it. It got me to be actually interested in a slow burn romantic drama period piece which is definitely not always my thing. The chemistry between the two leads was great. I did really enjoy the movie, but you know, it’s not my fave, so it’s the top of my C tier.    
Portrait of a Lady on Fire

I watched this one recently as well, and it was really good! Definitely a beautiful romance, just not my genre in general. The concept itself is a really good one for a classic star-crossed lovers tale-- female painter hired to paint a wedding portrait of a noblewoman in secret because said noblewoman does not consent to her arranged marriage, so the painter has to steal long glances at her so that she can go and paint her likeness later, they fall in love, blablabla. Very tragic, very beautiful visually. It’s a great movie, but not one of my all-timers, so like Carol, into the top of C tier you go.

Stranger by the Lake

Stranger by the Lake. What a bizarre viewing experience. There are very few movies of which I genuinely do not understand the critical acclaim. This is one of them. This movie is straight up porn for at least the first half hour, dude. And, without getting into too much detail, I am pretty sure a lot of the sex acts are not simulated. Pro-tip: do not try to watch this movie with a friend. Or your parents. Dear God.

Emilia Pérez

What can I say about Emilia Pérez? AP News says “On one hand, ‘Emilia Pérez’ is one of the most celebrated films of the year. It triumphed at the Golden Globes, earned 11 BAFTA nominations and landed 13 Academy Award nominations. Only three movies, ever, have scored more” (Jake Coyle). Entertainment weekly calls it a “wild, gritty, glitter-soaked ride that defies convention and classification” (Lenker). Some people like Letterboxd user “MeitarG” are praising it as “ambitious, genre-defying, visually stunning, musically rich, and emotionally profound”. It is definitely unique and bold, true. It does play with genre and I think tries to be a profoundly emotional character study? I think it tries to speak on more internal themes of human identity as opposed to larger social issues like trans rights, sexism, and cartel violence and corruption in Mexico. But the problem, to me, is that it shouldn’t avoid confronting these huge issues that are so woven into the very fabric of the film’s setting. It needs to make an actual statement about it, otherwise it feels hollow and weird. Watching the film feels like there is an elephant in the room at best, and at worst it actively trivializes and mis-represents the struggles of marginalized people. Letterboxd user “comrade_yui” puts it better than I ever could as someone who couldn’t even get through the whole movie. This person’s on YouTube too so you can check their channel out: (1) Comrade Yui - YouTube.

They wrote that Emilia Perez is “so alienated from the experience of lived trans identity that it gets many basic facts wrong, stuff that any trans person could tell you about (for one thing, emilia pérez wouldn't 'smell like a man' if she was on HRT, as hormones have a massive effect on body odor). but even disregarding that, this is yet another crash-esque panorama of trying to tackle every societal problem and then acting as if the mere effort of that attempt, rather than the actual result, is profound. liberal-centrists can seemingly only understand queerness as 'the exceptional' to their 'normality', so they make a hyperbolic spectacle out of us and then go on to say that it's good optics, that it's 'representation', when in fact it is abstraction and dehumanization -- emilia pérez is made to represent so many contradictory things that in the end the film situates her as an icon rather than a real person, it is a crude mystification of everything the film claims to care about. and none of this is to mention the fact that director audiard films his musical in the most patronizing academicist way, an empty grab-bag of techniques with no decisive point-of-view (the split-screen sequence near the climax is particularly punishing). 

what emilia pérez offers is not meaning, but the sensation of supposedly meaningful things moving in rapid succession, and it hopes the resulting blur will pass by quick enough that we do not notice the superficiality of its style -- in other words, a perfect film for awards season.”

And on top of all that… it’s a film about Mexico with almost no Mexican people working on it--with the exception of actress Adriana Paz and kinda Selena Gomez who is Chicana (Jones). Mexican producer Héctor Guillén tweeted this:

Like what in God’s name convinced Jacques Audiard that he was remotely qualified to tell a story about a transgender Mexican cartel leader? Not that you always have to “write what you know,” but like why would you want to speak on behalf of people who are getting so much crap in global–especially American–politics right now with your story choices but then not even mention trans or Mexican people pretty much AT ALL in your awards touring. As a random white American guy, I don’t have much I can say about that cultural axis of the film, but about the trans stuff… I mean it wasn’t offensive per se. BUT and this is a big but (lol), look if it was even five years ago, I would not have had as big a problem with it. I mean at least they actually did cast a transgender actress, but RIGHT NOW of all times??? when we’re THE hot button “social issue,” when our very existence is now a political debate, when the US government is trying its damndest to fucking ERADICATE us from history, strip us of our rights and dignity, and perhaps even be RID of us altogether??? NOW? And not using it as an opportunity to advocate? Like you clearly couldn’t give less of a solitary shit about trans people or Mexican people for that matter. You just want people to jerk you off about your “brave” and artsy dumbfuck Oscar bait movie.

And no, I’m not going to talk about Sofia Gascon’s offensive tweets from past years. I don’t feel it’s particularly relevant.
Conclusion

In her book Queer Cinema: Schoolgirls, Vampires, and Gay Cowboys Barbara Mennel describes queer film studies as “an archaeology of alternative cinematic aesthetics organized around non-normative desires” (Mennel, 1). Queer cinema is so much more than just stories on film about queer people; it is an entire mode of engaging with the medium, centered on questioning and subverting conventions and power structures. 

And you know what, I’m gonna say it, I think supporting queer film and queer artists is more important than ever right now given the current political climate and a rise in vitriolic rhetoric about transgender people. Woah, he’s gone woke.




CITATIONS

Clark, Ashley. “Burning down the House: Why the Debate over Paris Is Burning Rages On.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 June 2015, www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/24/burning-down-the-house-debate-paris-is-burning.

Coyle, Jake. “The ‘Emilia Pérez’ Backlash, Explained.” AP News, AP News, 27 Feb. 2025, apnews.com/article/emilia-perez-oscars-backlash-eb75830df1d413779daacc331cd2b8e6?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share.

Graham, Tristan. “Critique of Bell Hooks - the Will to Change and Beyond...” Medium, Medium, 22 Apr. 2023, tristangraham300.medium.com/critique-of-bell-hooks-the-will-to-change-and-beyond-cb09d504eb0.

Green, Jesse. “Paris Has Burned.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Apr. 1993, www.nytimes.com/1993/04/18/style/paris-has-burned.html#.

Hooks, Bell. “Is Paris Burning?” Black Looks: Race and Representation, South End Press, Boston, MA, 1992, pp. 145–156.

Jones, Emma. “‘You’re Playing with One of Our Biggest Wars’: Why Some Mexican People Are Upset about Oscars Frontrunner Emilia Pérez.” BBC News, BBC, 24 Jan. 2025, www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250121-why-some-mexicans-are-criticising-oscar-tipped-emilia-perez.

Lenker, Maureen Lee. “‘Emilia Pérez’ Is a Joyfully Erratic Opera Swirled with a Soapy Melodrama.” EW.Com, Entertainment Weekly, 2 Sept. 2024, ew.com/emilia-perez-review-erratic-opera-telenovela-zoe-saldana-selena-gomez-8705123.

Maclay, Willow Catelyn. “Jennie Livingston on Paris Is Burning 30 Years Later.” Hyperallergic, 29 Feb. 2020, hyperallergic.com/544265/jennie-livingston-interview-paris-is-burning-criterion-collection/.

Martinez, Olga. “Paris Is Burning- Bell Hooks and Judith Butler.” Olga Says:, 30 Oct. 2012, opmartinez.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/paris-is-burning-bell-hooks-and-judith-butler/.

McCarty-Simas, Payton. “The Brooklyn Rail.” Jane Schoenbrun’s I Saw the TV Glow, 6 Mar. 2024, brooklynrail.org/2024/03/film/Jane-Schoenbruns-I-Saw-the-TV-Glow/.

Mennel, Barbara Caroline. Queer Cinema: Schoolgirls, Vampires and Gay Cowboys. Wallflower, 2012.

Shapiro, Stephen. “Pose, Paris Is Burning, and the Creation of Community.” Medium, Medium, 26 Jan. 2019, medium.com/@dr.sshapiro/pose-paris-is-burning-and-the-creation-of-community-1f1fdd69634d.

Zeric, Arijana, and Jennie Livingston. “Jennie Livingston on the Complex Legacy of Paris Is Burning.” AnOther, AnOther Magazine, 6 Mar. 2020, www.anothermag.com/design-living/12333/paris-is-burning-director-jennie-livingston-rupauls-drag-race-pose-bell-hooks.