Queer Cinema - Tumblr Posts
The Tempest - 1979 - Derek Jarman
so i’m probably late to the party because the movie was just released here, but i really loved “i saw the tv glow” and thought it would be fun to write down some of the buffy coded stuff in it. so there’s the obvious “female lead supernatural teen drama with a monster of the week format that deals with adolescence and destiny etc etc etc” stuff but here’s a list of some of the other similarities/references i spotted:
List of Buffy References/Similarities I Found in “I Saw the TV Glow”
♡the opening credits of “the pink opaque” uses the same font as buffy
♡doublelunch = a reference to “doublemeat palace”
♡amber benson cameo (duh!)
♡a character named “tara” (bonus points because maddie/tara is a lesbian)
♡”the pink opaque” is cancelled at season 5 and buffy was meant to end at the 5th season
♡buffy season 6 starts with buffy having to claw herself out of her own grave after being brought back from the afterlife and (presumably) season 6 of “the pink opaque” would begin with isabel & tara also doing the same - we know maddie/tara does this obviously, but it’s left ambitious whether owen/isabel will but it’s implied that season 6 can’t properly start til owen/isabel does…
♡having actual irl musicians perform at a club just reminded me of when irl bands performed at “the bronze” (and also like in “p3” in “charmed” and other shows of that era) …not so much a reference but i thought that was neat
♡so “snail mail” did a cover of “tonight, tonight” for the film and on the cover of the single she’s holding a buffy style scythe
♡the plot kinda reminded me of “normal again” where due to demonic stuff buffy starts to believe her sunnydale life was just fantasy/delusion and that she’s just a regular girl in a mental institution in la
"नफ़रत फैलाने वाले अकसर बिकाऊ होते हैं।"
Modern Love: Mumbai (Episode 2: Baai) dir. Hansal Mehta
badhaai do: how some of us from the queer community missed its point
I've been back after 9213049 years to announce that y'all MUST watch Badhaai Do, it's literally the most beautiful form of queer representation I've seen. another thing, ignore those who say there are zero queer people involved.
a few spoilers ahead, so please watch the movie before reading this :))
1. the script consultant is queer.
2. the people in the pride parade (which had the unfortunate straight flag in the trailer) were queer. I saw plenty of instagram stories by those in there, posting about it, and checked out their profiles. if they didn't spot it, that means not all queer people keep up with news that makes them sad lol.
3. the girl who hands the mask to Shardul was his sister-in-law, also queer.
4. we also don't know for sure whether there aren't any other queer people involved in the making, so let's not just assume that only the hets were a part of this.
and check out the interviews by the crew - they have mentioned more than once that they showed this film to a LOT of queer people, showed the script to a lot of queer people too. the script consultant recently mentioned just how far the writers and directors went to keep it as sincere as possible. that doesn't sound like "rainbow capitalism to me". that doesn't sound like capitalizing off queer suffering.
i, for one, can see some sincere and genuine effort put in by people who are not even gay. we got a pride anthem, some solid gay-lesbian solidarity (#sumiandshardulbesties5ever), realistic queer romance, and several milestones in Indian cinema too, I think (I do not recall a blood test being portrayed as sensual in bollywood before OH MY GOD). i remember tearing up at sumi's father destroying her (and me) with the singular line: "mere ghar me hi kyu?" (why does it have to be at my home AKA why does it have to be my daughter?). i remember the joy of seeing a pride parade and my date bawling like a child watching sumi and rhimjhim run underneath the rainbow. i had to watch it more than once to fully understand the little details and the subtleties of the characters. some of my favourites are:
1. rhimjhim blowing kisses at shardul during the pride (hints at the start of the second half, when shardul blows her kisses)
2. guru giving such a fruity kick to shardul it melts my heart dkjsfji
3. not all members of the family are present in the last scene. taiji and sumi's mother are absent, another unnamed aunt, shardul's nieces, etc. but we see her brother, who was the one who called her a "pervert". character growth there and we dont need to get into how it happened. this is not about them, after all.
5. sumi wearing the red glasses to not let shardul's coworkers find out that she's a part of the parade.
6. the walkie-talkie during the scene with shardul's superior and his wife visiting them for tea is blaring about loud, barking dogs and the dialogues SEND ME.
7. kabir's text messages. you really need to pause to read them but they're so sus (i think he might be cheating? idk)
basically, it ages like an evergreen forest.
i didn't expect to walk into the theatre to watch an arthouse, indie film. at its core, what badhaai do has achieved is something phenomenal - it has retained what defines a bollywood movie while simultaneously portraying queer relationships as something not extraordinary or reserved for the "woke" segments of society. the characters aren't just their sexualities and sumi says it herself: "hissa hain, puri zindagi kaha hain." (trans: it's just a part of us, not our entire life.) shardul slaps his lover, kabir is an asshole, sumi decimates her partner's career, rhimjhim makes assumptions on shardul's sexuality, etc. it is bad enough that i have to sit through homophobes calling this as a disgusting film filled with obscene scenes, giving their low-iq opinions on why it's wrong. now i have to sit through seasoned, jaded queer individuals like me, give some of the worst reasons to cancel a film and call it problematic?
The characters are not pinnacles of perfection and I'm here for it. I don't want a cardboard vincian protagonist. some
of the reviewers clearly don't understand what nuance is and I'm okay with that. some of us who have grateful access to resources and inner pride meetings forget that there are those still in closet, those who still don't know that gender is a social construct. that we still live in a country which has some of the most homophobic outlooks. sure, homophobia was a concept popularized by the British, but are we really going to forget that there are scriptures dated BC that have specific laws for punishing lesbians? homophobia has been as rooted in our culture as the urge to search for a suitable groom for a girl the minute she comes of age (the number may change with each passing century, but does it really matter?).
those that go as far as the city's outskirts for a chance to live a life free from the heteronormative eye. there are also those who want a child as their own. what's so heteronormative about that? what's so heteronormative about wanting to be a mother? are we seriously going to nitpick on the littlest things? and let us not forget that guru isn't at all interested in the child. he states this himself and is hesitant to join Shardul until he is told that it is just to be by his side. the ending is not meant to be perfect. heck, I would go as far as to say that the true ending was when it was just Sumi and Shardul with the child. perhaps the filmmakers wanted to offer us a happy ending, or at least, a bittersweet one. and i will quote the director from his interview with PeepingMoon: "they never really come out of the closet. instead, the closet just gets bigger."
this is coming from someone still in the closet, living in a somewhat conservative society and still grasping with their own gender identity. my closet keeps getting bigger, with the recent addition of my mother to it. watching this movie encouraged me to come out to her and my mother to give some of most supportive words a queer child can hear. and for that, i cannot thank Badhaai Do and its makers enough for it.
Filth are her politics!
EVERYONE STOP SCROLLING AND READ THIS NOW!
Bestie, this is everything I could've ever wanted. You mind! You're beautiful mind! I don't know what to say. This was food for my soul. You've inspired me to study film analysis. This breakdown blew me away! 🤯 I'm just rambling cuz I'm genuinely floored. Wow!
Queer Text/Subtext in Shallow Grave (1994)
CW: BLOOD, STABBING, MURDER, NON-SEXUAL NUDITY, DRUG USE
I guess I wrote a rough essay... about the queer subtext in Shallow Grave... Here... have the rough draft if you'd like...
Overt references to queerness:
When we look at contemporary movies, we often have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss any “funny” references to queerness or sexuality to be taken as jokes and nothing further than that. Unfortunately, this has become all too common, and does a disservice to the films we watch. So I will be taking every moment of referenced or implied queerness as serious, even if it is delivered in a humorous way. Especially because this movie is not meant to be a comedy (despite some humorous moments).
Furthermore, references to queerness in movies should be taken seriously because they establish not only the existence of queerness (in universe, as one might say), but can also demonstrate the character’s attitudes towards queerness. Its important to notice that at no point in this movie are any references to queerness played for a laugh – they might be humorous, but we are not meant to laugh at the character for being queer, which indicates that queerness is taken seriously within the universe of the movie (or at least between the characters).
The first overt reference to queerness is when Juliet asks an interviewee if he is having an affair with a man or a woman and the man is not given screen time to answer. This same man bursts into tears after Alex, a man, says, “When did anyone last say to you these exact words, ‘you are the sunshine of my life’?” (this is a reference to the Stevie Wonder song of the same name). While it is technically (according to the script) said by Alex to a different interviewee, the arrangement of the shots does not indicate that, as it cuts directly from Alex asking the question to the man crying. This could imply a number of things.
The second overt reference to queerness comes at the charity ball, where a Scotsman says, “ladies and gentlemen, and those of you who are neither or both,” which is then met with a drumroll. Alex immediately responds, offended, “where did they dig him up?” implying that Alex finds the joke to be outdated and, perhaps, distasteful.
The third overt reference is when Alex dresses in drag. He also appears in the same scene, on the tape recording wearing some rather flamboyant costumes. The fact that Alex is in drag is not addressed by any of the other characters, nor by Alex, indicates that this is either a usual occurrence, or, for some reason, entirely unremarkable to the characters. Specifically, it is interesting that David does not comment on it, as he walks into the scene unsuspecting.
The fourth, and final, overt reference to queerness is when, upon being told of Juliet and David’s relationship, Alex says to Juliet, “I’d do exactly the same thing except I don’t think I’m his type.” If the line is interpreted sarcastically (which I think most viewers will) then we can assume that he is jealous of David for being with Juliet. If it is interpreted as earnest, then we can assume that he is jealous of Juliet for being with David. It also could be an ambiguous combination of both.
Queer Subtext:
Now let us dig into the subtext, which I actually find to be much juicier....
The Squash Scene and the Car
Directly after the interviews have concluded, we are given a scene which helps frame the relationship between the three characters as one built on dynamics of domination and submission and gives us a baseline to understand each of the character’s roles within this dynamic. This scene takes place on the Squash court.
There is a deviation here between the script and the film, as several lines have been cut, but I will include them as they add some context to the scene.
In the above text, Alex indicates that he sees this game of squash as a struggle for dominance. In this case, the game between Alex and David is won by Alex, who then, despite having called David a “bad loser,” demonstrates that he is a sore winner when he gloats over David by saying, “defeat, defeat, defeat – sporting, personal, financial, professional, sexual, and everything.”
David is clearly annoyed by this and storms off. This scene sets up the ongoing power dynamic between Alex and David in which Alex is the dominant one in the relationship. It also is the first time that we see David being emasculated by Alex, which will continue occurring for the first half of the movie.
Immediately after David leaves the court, Juliet takes his place to play a match against Alex. In this scene she is wearing a rather masculine outfit which is similar to that of the two male characters. She also sports short hair throughout the movie, but this is the scene in which she appears the most “boyish.” When she enters the court to play, Alex begins to make the same statement (“Did you know squash is-”) that he made (in the script) earlier, to David. Thus he is using this exercise as a way to exert dominance, not only over David, his male sexual rival, but also over Juliet, thus implying that she is on equal footing – therefore also a sexual rival. However, Juliet cuts him off and tells him, “Alex, just serve.”
The action of cutting off Alex denies him domination in that moment, thus establishing that the two of them are on much more equal footing, or possibly that Juliet is in fact the dominant one between the two of them. This scene serves to establish that typical gendered dynamics are somewhat blurred between these three individuals, and that David, instead of Juliet, takes on the most feminine/passive role in the group.
The next scene once again highlights the complicated gender and power dynamics within the group. Juliet drives the car (masculine) while Alex and David bicker with one another from the back seat and passenger seat, respectively.
In this scene, addressing Alex’s win, David says, “Victory is the same as defeat – it’s giving into destructive competitive urges,” which distances him from competition, and could be interpreted as him rejecting the masculine urge to dominate. Alex, in return, emasculates him by belittling his reliance on a “discussion group,” (implied to be therapy). During this scene, Alex and David are looking at one another, however, the rear-view mirror blocks both of their eyes. This symbolizes their unwillingness to see “eye-to-eye and perhaps a certain level of repression between the two of them. Also in this scene, Juliet physically dominates Alex by elbowing him in the chest, and attempts to emasculate him verbally by implying that a woman that he is interested in hates him. She does this specifically in response to Alex’s emasculation of David, thus establishing that while Alex might be dominant over David, she is dominant over him. During this exchange, however, in her attempt to protect David from Alex, David is further emasculated because he relies on someone else to defend him.
Discovering the Body / Three Friends, Three Bodies
When the trio discovers Hugo’s body we see some more of this interesting dynamic.
David stands by shocked while Alex ransacks the room searching for paraphernalia, while Juliet (the doctor among them) attends to the body.
Hugo’s nude corpse in this scene represents male vulnerability. He is prone and exposed on the bed, having overdosed on heroin, and can do nothing while his privacy is violated (by the dominant, Alex). The injection of drugs into the body, in this case, could also be said to symbolize emasculation - the breaking of the body barrier through penetration of a syringe (phallus). This exemplifies a significant cultural fear at the time – death of the male body via penetration, which had become a major concern due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. (If I was writing this essay for real, this is where I would insert articles that demonstrate horror’s preoccupation with AIDS and gay stuff during the 80s and 90s, but this is just for fun)
David, of course, is enamored by this display of the fragility of the male body. I would suggest that he identifies with Hugo’s vulnerability in death, and that the treatment of Hugo’s body by Alex and Juliet mirrors the way that they treat David. While Alex takes advantage of Hugo’s vulnerability in death by violating his privacy (thus dominating it), Juliet emasculates Hugo’s corpse by tending to it. In one shot, we also see Juliet’s fingers dangerously close to penetrating Hugo’s mouth.
We can also expand upon this by recognizing that the two male characters that are pursuing Hugo and the trio in search of the money, are parallels to Juliet and David. The two men are able to dominate Juliet and Alex through violence, only then to be killed by David. Thus, the three bodies that the trio end up burying are parallels to the trio themselves.
David Overcomes Emasculation, Alex Becomes Emasculated.
Alex’s emasculation of David continues throughout the first half of the movie, culminating in David being forced to dismember Hugo’s body (the very body that he identifies with). When this occurs, he becomes the violator/aggressor/dominator.
This occurrence proceeds the change in the group dynamic. Around the midpoint of the movie (during the charity ball) we see David transition into a dominant role in the trio, while Alex becomes submissive.
This is demonstrated first by Juliet dominating Alex while they dance. Alex falls to the floor, drunk, and Juliet takes that moment to step on Alex’s mouth, forcing him to lick the bottom of her shoe. He then willingly kisses her ankle, meeting her eye contact submissively. It is made clear through his facial expressions and laughter, that he finds joy in this act, thus embracing the emasculation (whereas David had always responded poorly, rejecting it).
Alex then attempts to re-exert control over David by forcing him to toast when he doesn’t want to. David eventually concedes after Alex yells at him, demanding that he toast to “love and happiness forever.” (Alex also humiliates and emasculates Cameron in this scene).
David finally exerts control when Brian McKenly (a man keen on pursuing Juliet) interrupts their conversation. David responds by standing on level with Brian and stating, “If you want to talk to my girlfriend, you talk to me first. If you want to dance with her, you apply in writing three weeks in advance or you end up inside of a fucking bin bag. You didn’t apply – so you don’t dance!”
While David shrinks a bit afterwards, admitting that he found the interaction stressful, both Juliet and Alex embrace him, in high spirits (one might say… aroused…). Alex exclaims, “He [David] was really good – fucking bin bag – I really liked that. You really explored your maleness to the full there! You were magnificent.” This statement indicates that Alex, who has rarely had an encouraging word for David over the course of the movie, is invigorated upon seeing that David has stepped into a dominant role, exerting his masculinity onto others. Immediately following this, Alex is assaulted in the bathroom by Cameron (who he had emasculated twice prior) and two other men, who beat him quite badly, thus emasculating Alex.
The following day, Alex’s emasculation is made complete when he dresses in drag and spends the day in debauchery with Juliet. The framing of his and Juliet’s bodies during this scene is also worth noting, as they are often visually indistinguishable from one another – with Alex being noticeably more feminine than Juliet in several shots due to his makeup, jewelry, dress, and rather delicate shoulders.
(Notably, during the entirety of the ball scene and much of the drag/video scene, Alex is often pictured smoking a cigar instead of his usual cigarette, which could be said to stand in for a phallus.)
From this point on, David is almost always dominant over Alex. (One notable exception is one moment where Alex leans in close to David during dinner and orders, “now swallow,” while making very intense eye contact. David regains control by reminding Alex that David was the one who dismembered Hugo’s body.)
After this point it is clear that David is undergoing some extreme psychological stress, and has become paranoid and aggressive. His shift in demeanor is most clearly symbolized by this shot, where he calls out of work so that he can begin making plans to protect the cash.
The Wickerman
During one scene, an injured Alex lays on the couch and watches the final scene of The Wickerman (1973).
The Wickerman tells the tale of a conservative Christian police officer who goes to a Scottish isle to investigate the disappearance of a girl, only to discover that the locals are practicing a form of paganism that involves human sacrifice. The police officer discovers that he is in fact the sacrifice. It is implied that he is the sacrifice because he is a virgin and a heterosexual, and he is unwilling to have sex with Christopher Lee’s character. Christopher Lee was most well known at the time for playing the lead in Dracula (1958) – another movie with extremely well documented queer subtext. The audience of The Wickerman would have been aware of this.
During this scene, the drumbeats of the pagan ritual, where the police officer is being marched to his execution/sacrifice, synchronizes with David’s steps overhead, a sound that the characters and the audience come to associate with surveillance and dread.
Honestly this scene has me a bit stumped. Who does Alex identify with in this situation? The heterosexual victim? – is the ending subverted because his submission culminates in… the penetration of Alex's body… thus making him queer? Idk it's been a long day.
Surveillance
During the second half of the movie, David moves into the Attic and rarely comes down when his housemates are home. He is protecting the money, both from his housemates and from the men who eventually come looking for it. While Alex and Juliet are brutalized by the men, David is the one who has set a trap for them, and is able to kill them. He also leads the trio to dispose of the bodies, and drives the van (whereas Alex had driven the van the first time they disposed of the bodies, when he had been the dominant one in the relationship).
During his time in the attic, David drills holes in the ceiling so that he can spy on his housemates. He is literally in a dominant position over them, looking down on them while they go about their daily tasks. In one scene, he spies on Alex and Juliet while they are sleeping. In this scene, he is shown first to be watching Alex. David is also in a state of undress that we have not seen before, implying a certain sensuality to the observation. We do not get to see Alex in a state of undress, but the scene finishes with Alex putting his shoes on, the camera looking down from above, implying David’s Point of view, and that he had watched the whole time. After Alex leaves, David moves to watch Juliet, in a scene that is much longer and more explicitly inappropriate and sexualized, especially because we come to understand that David’s temporary attic bed is located directly over her bed. However, before she begins undressing, he looks away and holds his head in his hands.
This scene simultaneously offers us a leveling effect between the two objects of David’s gaze (Alex and Juliet), while simultaneously prioritizing the heterosexual coupling. However, the implication that there is shame associated with the heterosexual gaze, complicates the situation.
Penetration with the Drill (Phallus)
When Alex goes into the attic to look for the money (and finds it in the water tank), he climbs back down the ladder only to be confronted by David, who is holding a drill (phallus) as a weapon. Alex’s hands are wet from the water, and he frantically wipes them on the seat of his pants, behind his back, visually placing his hands as a barrier to his anus. The Drill makes contact with Alex's head and breaks the skin in an act of penetration (the body barrier is broken). This is the first scene in which David directly engages in domination (and penetration) of Alex.
David’s Glasses and Alex’s Photo
Lenses, mirrors, and portals/doorways are deeply significant visual aids in this movie, but I want to highlight the one that stood out to me the most. When Juliet and David have (implied) sex, at which point they solidify their status as a couple, David removes his glasses, and places them on Juliet’s bedside table. Underneath the glasses is a photo of Alex in costume, a cigar in his mouth, framed through the lens of the glasses. The photo was taken on the day in which we see Alex at his most feminine, at a point where he had been thoroughly emasculated (beaten in a bathroom by a man that he had emasculated multiple times). The framing of the photo, through the lens of David’s glasses implies that this is how David sees Alex – costumed, emasculated, and with a phallus in his mouth.
This photo is also shown once more in the film; David holds the photo of Alex as he lies in his attic bed, and he pins it above his head so he can look at it. The scene cuts to Alex, also in bed, who then gets up. It once again cuts back to David, who also gets up, and we see that Juliet lies asleep next to him. This follows a pattern of shots that we’ve seen before in the film (see the Surveillance section), where we see David watching Alex in what could be interpreted as a sexual or romantic way, before the camera reveals Juliet and lingers significantly. The implication is that whatever there is between David and Alex always gives way to the relationship between David and Juliet.
Returning to the glasses - the final time that we see them is during the climax of the movie. The three characters are struggling against one another, and David’s head is forced into the refrigerator so that Alex can try and smash him with the door. He manages to throw Alex off, but not before his glasses are caught on the shelf of the refrigerator, thus knocking them off his face. Having David’s glasses be knocked off would not typically be significant in a fight scene such as this, however the camera goes out of its way to linger on this shot, indicating that the symbolism here is important. The other time that we have seen David remove his glasses has been before he has (implied) sex with Juliet. In this case, the removal of the glasses occurs just before David pins Alex in his final act of domination, which then culminates in the ultimate symbolic act of sexual penetration – David stabbing Alex with a knife (phallus).
NOTE: David is also pictured without glasses at the beginning of the film, where he is lying on his back, and halfway through the film, after he has dismembered Hugo in a symbolic act of violence against his own vulnerability. In the first scene we hear his monologue; “I’m not ashamed, I’ve known love, I’ve known rejection. I’m not afraid to declare my feelings. Take trust for instance, or friendship. These are the important things in life. These are the things that matter, that help you on your way. If you can’t trust your friends well, then what then? What then? This could have been any city, but all the same.” It is unclear until the end, but it seems that the first time that we see David, right at the beginning, we are actually seeing him postmortem in the morgue. Meaning that the monologue is a lament on his life... (You're not ashamed of what, David? Being a bit gay, perhaps?)
Penetration with the Knife (Phallus)
At the climax of the movie, after David’s glasses have been removed, we arrive at David’s final act of domination over Alex. David pins Alex to the floor by sitting on his stomach, with Alex’s legs pinned underneath his knees in a position that could be interpreted as sexual. He then holds Alex by the throat, and stabs him in the shoulder, slicing clean through and penetrating the floor. The act of stabbing (penetrating) a victim with a knife (phallus) is one often noted in analysis of horror films, as having sexual implications (again – I’d find some article about it here if I was a serious writer lol).
Before David can stab Alex again with a second knife, David is stabbed with a knife through the throat from behind by Juliet. Thus Juliet, who has been a dominant character throughout the movie, is symbolically penetrating David with a phallus. Furthermore, the location of the stabbing in the throat and from behind, implies that David has now suffered, once again, an emasculation, just as he had just preformed on Alex.
David collapses and dies, just as Hugo did, from emasculation through the body barrier being broken from penetration. Thus, David’s identification with Hugo’s corpse and the vulnerability that it represented, is complete in this moment.
Juliet then kneels over Alex, taking up the same position that David had just occupied, and places her hand on the knife in Alex’s shoulder, pressing on it, thus taking David’s place as the one to dominate Alex. She then removes her shoe, and in an act that mirrors the scene from the charity ball in which she dominated Alex by having him lick her shoe/foot, she uses her shoe to hit the knife three times, driving it deeper into his shoulder, further penetrating him. Thus, in her final interaction with both David, and Alex, she has penetrated them.
As she puts her shoe back on, we can see inside of the refrigerator, where we once again see David’s glasses, recalling once again that this scene is coded as sexual in nature through the movie's visual language.
As the movie closes, we discover that Alex is alive (probably), and that he has hidden the money underneath the floorboard. In the ultimate irony of the movie, the character that spent the second half of the movie being coded as the submissive (homosexual receiving) partner, has come out on top, despite the other two character’s attempt to dominate (and kill) him.
Uhhh the credits roll, and they're all shown as they were in the first scene of the movie, smiling, laughing, and the love song "Happy Heart" plays...
bury your gays and bring them back eviler, gayer, undead and looking for vengeance
god this movie makes me feel. i had to draw them
