Welcome to AfterElton.com!

Enter your AfterElton.com username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media

What Ever Happened to Queer Cinema?

But even if queer filmmakers aren't storming the gates of Hollywood, some feel the popcorn bucket is half-full and not half-empty when it comes to GLBT independent cinema.

“Look at the past few years,” says Rich. “We had Tarnation, we had By Hook or By Crook, both real high points, and now this year we have Itty Bitty Titty Committee, which I think is a whole new and exciting move by Jamie Babbitt to recapture that old energy and throw aside the current preconceptions.”

Carol Coombes, director of the Miami Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, feels that GLBT cinematic offerings have always been a mixed bag: “There will always be films that are fluffy, entertaining, and light, but there will be other films which are provocative and questioning. Mysterious Skin, Time to Leave, Shortbus, and The Bubble are all excellent examples of filmmakers pushing envelopes and raising questions, as are the documentaries For the Bible Tells Me So and Red Without Blue.”

Two of the narrative films Coombes cite come from overseas, which reveals one of the hard truths about contemporary queer cinema: The bulk of the interesting, daring, sexy, and envelope-pushing movies are coming from other countries.

According to Olson, “Since cinema is actually viewed foremost as an art form in pretty much every country in the world outside of the U.S., I do find that your average international queer film is likely to be cinematically superior to any random U.S. queer film, where the film industry continues to be much more a realm of commerce, not a workshop of creativity.”

Hu agrees, noting, “The most interesting GLBT films seem to be coming from other parts of the globe. Europe, Asia, South America, Egypt, you name it, there are interesting, complex films coming from all parts of the world. The American experience has been floundering with mediocre films.”

“In many ways, international queer cinema has always palpitated with the most provocative and spirited heartbeat,” says Coombes. “From the earlier films of Jean Cocteau, [Rainer] Werner Fassbinder, Derek Jarman, Pier Paolo Pasolini, and increasingly with the new wave of queer directors such as François Ozon, Eytan Fox, Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, and André Téchiné.”

This is not to say that U.S. theatrical audiences are embracing these great new movies.

“Without the festivals, forget it,” laments Rich. “The marketplace is not welcoming these films.”

Another aspect of this argument, however, is that queer audiences are getting the movies they deserve, both theatrically and at festivals. Did you buy a ticket to see Tropical Malady? Or Water Drops on Burning Rocks? What about Gasoline, The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveiros, Suddenly, Lan Yu, Yossi & Jagger, or A Thousand Clouds of Peace? If not, then you're part of the problem.

Case in point: Two of this year's most critically-acclaimed films are Tsai Ming-Liang's I Don't Want to Sleep Alone -- about a bizarre mute love triangle between an injured homeless man, his gay caretaker, and a waitress – and Apichatpong Weerasethakul's Syndromes and a Century. Both directors are queer, but both films are arty, challenging, and not in English. And subsequently, both are getting the tiniest amount of theatrical distribution in the United States.

The lack of attention shown to foreign films isn't exclusively a problem among queer audiences, of course, but aren't we supposed to be cooler than our hetero brethren? Gay audiences in decades past would pack the house for the likes of Taxi zum Klo and Doña Herlinda and Her Son, mainly because there were no queer domestic films to be found. But now that a world of options has opened up to us, your average urban movie-going gay would rather spend his eleven bucks on the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie than on anything from the Asian New Wave.

While it's easy for gay and lesbian movie fans to lament the festivals' high-profile placement of glossy movies with mainstream stars, a little digging in any queer film festival schedule will always yield more challenging goodies. And festivals will always provide that little something extra that you won't get from Netflix.

“What's still great about the LGBT-whatever festivals,” says Rich, “is that we get to discover ideas, people, issues, and in the best of times, styles, that we didn't know before. And only some of what goes on is up on the screen, anyway. Those festivals are still all about constituting publics, constructing communities, and giving folks markers to live their, and our, lives by.”

While obviously a champion of film festivals, Coombes says that the fact that they are no longer the only venue for queer film has changed the goals of GLBT filmmakers. “While the New Queer Cinema of the '90s found its audience principally in GLBT domestic and international film festivals, today's exhibition market is very different. Filmmakers faced with a plurality of wider choices are looking for the best places to platform their own work from major mainstream festivals, cable outlets, and, of course, niche market LGBT festivals. There will always be films that will receive wider distribution, and there will always be films that will screen once or twice in your local queer festival and probably not be seen again. I think filmmakers are interested in making films that get seen by an audience first and foremost.”

But just because young gay and lesbian filmmakers can use queer features as a calling card for work in Hollywood, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

“The majority of filmmakers seem to be making more conventional work,” says Olson. “And that is indeed depressing to me as a movie-lover. It makes me want to weep when I see so many boring, conventional films being made. These films that are not cinematic but are merely using a camera, dialogue, and some actors to tell a moderately interesting gay story are just not enough anymore.”

It may be, however, that the most interesting voices in contemporary queer cinema are eschewing the big screen for other platforms. Both Rich and Olson cite Girltrash, the upcoming OurChart.com series from lesbian director Angela Robinson (D.E.B.S., Herbie: Fully Loaded) as one of the most exciting projects on the horizon, while Ehrenstein praises network TV shows like Ugly Betty and Brothers & Sisters for their interesting and groundbreaking queer content.

Olson goes on to admit, “I feel like I'm always whining about this or that, and being snobby about the mainstream, but honestly, the best thing I've seen lately is Q. Allan Brocka's animated Logo show, Rick & Steve, which is really brilliant.”

Duralde is the author of 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men (Alyson Books).

homoguy563's picture

Art films....overrated.

You're obviously biased for art films, but who are you to decide they are cooler?You know what?I like fun, escapest entertainment with beautiful people, and there's nothing wrong with that.I love Dante's cove, but I guess i'm supposed to feel guilty about it because i'm not "cooler than our heterosexual brethren" if I don't like art films that aren't even in english more.I've seen foriegn gay movies, but maybe I don't always want to spend 2 hours reading a movie instead of just watching it.

I find this article pretentious and snobby.It's a real turn-off, so you can go ahead and add that to the list of things you think are standing in the way of "new queer cinema".While I have Lan yu and Yossi & Jagger, I wouldn't have bought a ticket to see Tropical malady, Gasoline, or any of those other movies either.Why?I think they're just as boring and uninteresting as you seem to find mainstream work.I also wouldn't consider By hook or by crook, or Tarnation "high points".

You talk like these films are inherently so much better.The so-called "fluff" serves a real purpose.Maybe that's why the masses like it.I know I don't want to sit through some bland art film that you think is so much more valid and "superior".I want to be entertained, not depressed.

So "queer audiences are getting the movies they deserve", huh?What an arrogant thing to say.You say that as if we're being hit with one bomb after another.I like classic film genres.My only complaint is that hollwood cuts gay people out of them, or reduces them to victims, eunichs, or stereotypes.

Ok, maybe it's not as good as it could be, but I love the stuff put out by Here!It's fun, funny, interesting, entertaining, and sexy which is more than I can say for some of the films you listed.I'd take D.E.B.S., or Hellbent over Water drops on burning rocks anyday.

Average (1 vote):
see individual ratings
GayTVluver's picture

Homo, I'm offering to help untwist your panties.

I didn't really get the feeling that the article is saying that one is better than the other. I think they are just saying where the stories are coming from. Big budget studios are being all lip service and no action on gay storylines. The excitement that was present a few years ago has faded to their usual insecurity on the topic. The torch has fallen back into the hands small studios and indie film makers.

If you enjoy Dante's Cove, have at it. But where are the movie versions of stories along this theme? Hell Bent was very enjoyable. But look around, look what happens when a movie tries to do a gay or homoerotic story...umm, The Covenant ring a bell?

I love movies like Another Gay Movie, Eating Out, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds, All Over the Guy and Latter Days.

You're very defensive of your love for what would be considered "guilty pleasure" entertainment. Dante's Cove is not War and Peace, neither is Here!'s The Lair. They are just fun. But the fact that they gain wide appeal for shirtless, pickle shots and crap writing is telling.

Look at the article again, where are gay movie coming from? What types of stories are most common?

Average (1 vote):
see individual ratings
homoguy563's picture

Gaytvluver, I think you should look at the article again.

I don't need to re-read the article because it definately came accross as saying one is better than the other to me and I have to defend my "guilty pleasures".I agree with most of what you said though.I remember in all the hype about Brokeback mountain people kept going on about how this is going to open doors, but I didn't really think it would.I just don't know if we'll ever have blockbuster studio movie complete with big budget special effects that has a gay lead character.(maybe an out actor someday, but not character.)

I do wish Dante's cove was written better, but i'm not sure if that cheese factor is intended, or not.If you watch behind-the-scenes interviews on the Here! site they'll say it's not meant to be taken too seriously.Peter stickles said the same about The lair in an interview on this site.I never said the show was going to win an emmy.I said people shouldn't turn their noses up at it like they're above it.

As for where the stories come from?Yeah, the article talked about that, but I felt like it put just as much focus on putting down a type of gay movie as where it came from.

Christie Keith's picture

I don't know...

I get limited personal enjoyment out of most art films. I feel the same way about literary fiction.

I want to see a good story -- a STORY, not a theme, ideas, metaphors, concepts, and cool stuff to do with filmmaking technology -- but then I also want to see it well crafted. I want good writing, with distinctive and interesting characters. I want good direction, editing, and sound.

The reality is, independent films often suffer from budget constraints, so I really like it when filmmakers make a virtue of necessity and don't create a film that would have been better -- truer to their intent -- with more money, but instead make a film that reaches its highest form with the money the filmmaker had.

I believe most art films suck, and so do most commercial, mainstream films. I'm personally stunned at the banality and self-indulgence of most movies.

But when I see a film that blows me away, it could as easily be an entirely conventional film made with mainstream stars as it could be an art house gem caught at a late night queer film festival showing. Both are very rare, but it's not really about genre.

I feel that genre fiction (mysteries, sci-fi, etc.) or genre films (love stories, medical dramas, etc.) is not the problem or the point. I would rather read a simple, well-crafted story by a gifted storyteller writing within a genre than a pretentious, over-wrought, plotless exercise in "creative writing" any day. I would rather watch a well-written, And to be perfectly honest, I don't automatically elevate those beautiful, brilliant, incandescent art films or works of literary fiction above genre films and books done equally well, because storytelling, characterization, and all the crafts of both filmmaking and writing have artistic merit and move the art form ahead.

Ooops, work calls... I'll be back!

 

Average (1 vote):
see individual ratings
TerrynJames's picture

camp or art?

I really don't know, don't get me wrong, but I've never heard of a lot of the films listen in the article, I do know however that I love camp and cheese and all the guilt that goes with it! I adore Dante's Cove (all the way to the bad acting) and I recently saw DEBS which I must say rocked!!!
But the thing is films are meant to be relatable, how many gay films are there about coming out? hundreds, probably because it's one of the biggest things you do and that fear and all the emotion that goes along with it probably just wouldn't be understood by a large majority of straight people, where as Another Gay Movie, I showed that to a few of my straigh freinds and they thought it was hilarious ( I did have to explain the whole Mommie Dearest factor but hey)
I love gay films and am one of the first to bitch about the lack of original scrips but as Christie says I love films for the story and characters more than just the sexuality of the characters.
hmm kinda went on a bit of a ramble there....

sorry ;)

James

x

David Ehrenstein's picture

"I THINK they're just as boring and uninteresting"

-- meaning of course you haven't seen them. And don't intend to -- ever.

Too bad. Your loss. Tropical Malady is a masterpiece, and so is I Don't Want to Sleep Alone, Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train and any number of other great gay films you don't have the guts to support.

Average (1 vote):
see individual ratings
willgold222's picture

Can lead a horse to water...

I am totally in your corner, but you can't force appreciation for art on the unwilling. I remember reflexively hating all the great art that was spoonfed to me in school, only to discover later that I loved all of it.  I think it takes voluntary investigation during one's college years for this to happen, or it's not going to.
homoguy563's picture

"Masterpieces you don't have the guts to support"

That doesn't make any sense.It's not about having the guts to support them.I just can't get into them.If I don't like it, I don't like.
Average (1 vote):
see individual ratings
proudtobedad's picture

Just trying to get a new gay-themed film made is hard enough...

I recently completed a gay-themed screenplay and have been shopping it around.  Despite the success of Brokeback, the comment I hear repeatedly from my queries is, "You've written a tough sell." 
While I feel my script breaks new ground for gay-themed films, even the gay producers I've contacted say, "We're only looking for strick genre films right now."  No one even seems interested in reading it, even though it is probably the best thing I've ever written.
Maybe it's because the financial parameters of making a film have changed, or that the talent pool has been integrated too fully into the mainstream that there are no risk-takers left.  But it seems that the only way to get a new, wholly original film produced is to make it yourself--which takes deep pockets and a whole lot of influential contacts.  (And given that it's hard to make contacts when you're home parenting your kids...  Boy, has the gay world changed!!!)
Interesting projects ARE out there.  They're just sitting alone, screaming in the darkness...
ratchet77's picture

The Death of Queer Cinema

My only qualm with this article is that gay cinema has in fact never been consistent and the best films (made by gay directors) have nothing to do with homosexuality or its ramifications to an individual or society.  These movies treat their characters as PEOPLE rather than GAY people.  Brokeback is a perfect case and point.  It's compelling because the story is well-written and characters are complex, NOT beacause they're gay. Movies that are "gay' rarely bother to go beyond the surface of the subject matter and end up, at best, as shallow entertainment.  There are, of course, a very few exceptions to this observation, but on the whole, Queer Cinema is a doomed and worthless genre that produces films with the intellectual complexity of a brick in a high heel and attracts a similar ilk.

My advice is to champion the great filmmakers who ARE around today (apichatpong weerasethakul, tsai-ming liang, gus van sant, pedro almodovar) and just let these new mutant genre offspring die the peaceful death the deserve.  After all, no one is going to bother resurrecting them years from now.