Sweetie, maybe you're too young to remember, but when Brokeback Mountain came out, it was actually brave to act in it. A lot of prominent actors passed on it due to fears of backlash. And the movie was mocked for a while. Now, it's considered a powerful classic.
That's true! That's why I think it that the conversation around straight actors getting praised for 'gay' roles is interestingly complex. While I do think there is some 'look at that straight guy having to kiss another dude, how brave' going on, it is for a lack of better words a bargain for these actors. They might get praised, or they might get looked over for more 'manly' roles. This is why people are so shocked Daniel Craig is playing a gay role since he was James Bond not too long ago.
I've seen it twice. the first time I liked it but left feeling disturbed and couldn't figure out why. it was obviously pushing some buttons in me. decided to see it again. the second time I saw much more of the multilayered texture of each character and the genius behind how the tragedy and joy is directed on screen. Like the first time I saw the musical gray gardens on broadway, loved it but left feeling very disturbed by the story. now gray gardens is one of my all time favorite musicals because of the heart in the story and the music. I listen to the cast recording frequently. hope when queer is released digitally there is a longer director's cut which might help fill in the gaps in the flow of the movie.
I would LOVE to get a longer version of the film. I heard that there is a 3 hour version that got shortened for the film release, I really hope that's true.
This is an excellent movie in so many ways. It is well written, the acting (especially Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey) is superb. The cinematography is phenomenal. It definitely represents the lives and the psychology of gay men at two very different stages of self-acceptance in the early '50s. So, why is it so divisive? Why do some love it and some hate it? I think it has to do with a few things. First, there are people who are homophobes and hate queer movies. Not sure why they went (LOL--yes, I am pretty sure, at least). Second, it has a lot of metaphors in it. People's brains tend to be dichotomous as to whether they are linear thinkers and like movies in which everything is spelled out for them OR they are less concrete and more associative thinkers and like the many interpretations of metaphors. Of course, it's really a continuum, but these are the extremes. People at the first extreme (more concrete thinkers) would hate this movie and not understand its true meaning. Those at the other extreme probably would love it. As you say, it's the story of a gay man in middle-age (former military) who lives in Mexico. He's a drug addict, which likely represents the misery he experiences as a gay man in the '50s. He says he's in Mexico because his drug habit would get him imprisoned in the U.S. Remember, though, this was the era of McCarthyism, and his homosexuality also may have gotten him imprisoned--as a "communist"). So, he lives in Mexico and is seeking a meaningful gay relationship. Unfortunately, all he finds is superficial hook-ups. He sees and becomes infatuated with Eugene, a younger man who is struggling with his queer identity and is unable to accept it. Yet, he is drawn to Lee, the older man. This sets the stage for what is to occur. The part that I think really confuses people and is off-putting for them is Chapter 3 with the telepathy augmenting drug in South America. This is the metaphor for the struggle that Eugene is going through, knowing that he is attracted to men, specifically Lee, and denying his own homosexuality. Lee "hears" the thoughts of Eugene during their drug intoxication, "I AM NOT QUEER!" Ultimately, Eugene runs away in an effort to escape his sexuality. And Lee lives on alone, lonely, and grieving over the loss of Eugene, and dies a miserable death. Whie the movie has a hit of romance; it really is a tragedy of two gay men who are at very different stages of their lives and unable to connect in the early '50s. That is my assessment of the movie.
Thank you for your insights! I think you're right, this is one of those movies where you get what you put in at times. If you can't relate to the themes and motifs that the movies touches on, it can be tough to get a sense for it. A lot of the themes touch on the specifics of being queer, yes, but being queer in a time when many of us weren't even alive. Some of the portrayals, while seeming true to the era, do read as 'off' since that era is detached of how we live our lives.
I thought it was gorgeously referential. It was an homage to the awakening that was spawned by Burroughs. I am glad Luca Guadigno showed us his vision since there will not be another gay movie like it for a while. I don't care if it was anything like the book. The book for me was something like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, yet Luca held throughout the film the theme of what identifies as Queer, and he did so through the rearview mirror of anachronism and stylistic reference
I think the term for the gay that Daniel Craig was portraying is the Nelly. Queer was an 80s term, which was when the book was published to captivate the Gen X audience that was already into Burroughs. Hence this is why all the time jumps and cross generational timelessness occurs
Great review. Saw this haunting masterpiece twice...astonishingly powerful with the second viewing.
I need to get a second viewing of this movie ASAP
Sweetie, maybe you're too young to remember, but when Brokeback Mountain came out, it was actually brave to act in it. A lot of prominent actors passed on it due to fears of backlash. And the movie was mocked for a while. Now, it's considered a powerful classic.
That's true! That's why I think it that the conversation around straight actors getting praised for 'gay' roles is interestingly complex. While I do think there is some 'look at that straight guy having to kiss another dude, how brave' going on, it is for a lack of better words a bargain for these actors. They might get praised, or they might get looked over for more 'manly' roles. This is why people are so shocked Daniel Craig is playing a gay role since he was James Bond not too long ago.
I've seen it twice. the first time I liked it but left feeling disturbed and couldn't figure out why. it was obviously pushing some buttons in me. decided to see it again. the second time I saw much more of the multilayered texture of each character and the genius behind how the tragedy and joy is directed on screen. Like the first time I saw the musical gray gardens on broadway, loved it but left feeling very disturbed by the story. now gray gardens is one of my all time favorite musicals because of the heart in the story and the music. I listen to the cast recording frequently. hope when queer is released digitally there is a longer director's cut which might help fill in the gaps in the flow of the movie.
I would LOVE to get a longer version of the film. I heard that there is a 3 hour version that got shortened for the film release, I really hope that's true.
This is an excellent movie in so many ways. It is well written, the acting (especially Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey) is superb. The cinematography is phenomenal. It definitely represents the lives and the psychology of gay men at two very different stages of self-acceptance in the early '50s. So, why is it so divisive? Why do some love it and some hate it? I think it has to do with a few things. First, there are people who are homophobes and hate queer movies. Not sure why they went (LOL--yes, I am pretty sure, at least). Second, it has a lot of metaphors in it. People's brains tend to be dichotomous as to whether they are linear thinkers and like movies in which everything is spelled out for them OR they are less concrete and more associative thinkers and like the many interpretations of metaphors. Of course, it's really a continuum, but these are the extremes. People at the first extreme (more concrete thinkers) would hate this movie and not understand its true meaning. Those at the other extreme probably would love it. As you say, it's the story of a gay man in middle-age (former military) who lives in Mexico. He's a drug addict, which likely represents the misery he experiences as a gay man in the '50s. He says he's in Mexico because his drug habit would get him imprisoned in the U.S. Remember, though, this was the era of McCarthyism, and his homosexuality also may have gotten him imprisoned--as a "communist"). So, he lives in Mexico and is seeking a meaningful gay relationship. Unfortunately, all he finds is superficial hook-ups. He sees and becomes infatuated with Eugene, a younger man who is struggling with his queer identity and is unable to accept it. Yet, he is drawn to Lee, the older man. This sets the stage for what is to occur. The part that I think really confuses people and is off-putting for them is Chapter 3 with the telepathy augmenting drug in South America. This is the metaphor for the struggle that Eugene is going through, knowing that he is attracted to men, specifically Lee, and denying his own homosexuality. Lee "hears" the thoughts of Eugene during their drug intoxication, "I AM NOT QUEER!" Ultimately, Eugene runs away in an effort to escape his sexuality. And Lee lives on alone, lonely, and grieving over the loss of Eugene, and dies a miserable death. Whie the movie has a hit of romance; it really is a tragedy of two gay men who are at very different stages of their lives and unable to connect in the early '50s. That is my assessment of the movie.
Thank you for your insights! I think you're right, this is one of those movies where you get what you put in at times. If you can't relate to the themes and motifs that the movies touches on, it can be tough to get a sense for it. A lot of the themes touch on the specifics of being queer, yes, but being queer in a time when many of us weren't even alive. Some of the portrayals, while seeming true to the era, do read as 'off' since that era is detached of how we live our lives.
@@Mov1eJunk1e That is correct. 2024 is VASTLY different from the '50s.
For some context, whenever there's a movie about queer love it always gets bombarded with 1-star reviews so I wouldn't take that as genuine criticism.
Very true! But even outside of that, it is still divisive for many people!
I thought it was gorgeously referential. It was an homage to the awakening that was spawned by Burroughs. I am glad Luca Guadigno showed us his vision since there will not be another gay movie like it for a while. I don't care if it was anything like the book. The book for me was something like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, yet Luca held throughout the film the theme of what identifies as Queer, and he did so through the rearview mirror of anachronism and stylistic reference
I really want to read the book after watching the movie! I'm curious to see how it's themes resonate nowadays!
What are your thoughts about Queer??
I think the term for the gay that Daniel Craig was portraying is the Nelly. Queer was an 80s term, which was when the book was published to captivate the Gen X audience that was already into Burroughs. Hence this is why all the time jumps and cross generational timelessness occurs
Sodom and Gomorrah
??
@ you know what I mean