It’s a strange feeling: adoring cinema while at the same time always sensing that it’s not made for you. This is how I felt growing up, at least. I came of age watching movies, crushing on them so hard that they became the only true romance of my tender years. Yet so many of the ones that I watched seemed to have something in common: the implicit message that love and sex existed only between men and women. There were exceptions, peeking out from the corners in my young film education: The Color Purple, with its chaste yet undeniably amorous kiss between Whoopi Goldberg and Margaret Avery; Cabaret, in which Michael York admitted to cheating on Liza Minnelli with Helmut Griem; and Persona, which I’ll never forget watching for the first time, in my bedroom on a VHS rented from my local library, wondering just what was the nature of the attraction-repulsion between Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullmann, mysterious, beautiful women whose bond certainly didn’t conform to any standards I had been conditioned to. But these were the disrupters, the odd ducks among the rows and rows of films that, no matter how much they might later be embraced by queer studies, were quietly reinforcing mainstream—i.e. “straight”—culture.
With its shakes and shudders, its unexpected cuts or longing, unbroken glances, cinema all but quivers with lust. The form itself cannot live, might have never lived, without human desire to give it shape and meaning. What was one of the first films ever shown to the public but Edison’s 1896 short The Kiss? The camera looks, we look, the actors look. The dream world of the movies functions on the assumption that we in some way crave, idealize, or fetishize the people we see on-screen, whose faces, bodies, and lives we can never touch. In a sense, then, cinema is a denial of our physical pleasure, a strictly imaginary evocation of what we want. The movies show us our dreams, but they’re behind a thick, unnavigable fog that keeps them forever just out of reach.
sense that cinema is an unrepentant flirt, or for some a diabolical tease, is
particularly heightened for the queer viewer. With more socially acceptable
heterosexual desires already policed by
restrictive codes, gay desire has long been especially obscured. The
Motion Picture Production Code in the U.S., for instance—first prescribed in 1930, then seriously enforced in 1934—regulated gayness by labeling it as “sex
perversion” and moved on, better to have inferred rather than actually writing
that nasty word “homosexual.” This
attitude was largely true in film industries across the globe for most of the last
century (and unfortunately remains
the standard in much of the world, despite incremental steps toward progress). As a result, the handful of movies from the first half of the
twentieth century that dared to thrum and burn with queer desire have stood out
like sparkling rubies in a vast, dark wasteland: Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Michael (1924), Germaine Dulac’s Princess Mandane (1928), Jean Cocteau’s The Blood of a Poet (1930),
Leontine Sagan’s Mädchen in Uniform (1931), George Cukor’s Sylvia Scarlett (1935),
Jean Genet’s Un chant d’amour (1950)—all thrill from the margins, pointing toward an
alternate, queer film history that has long existed in parallel to the given
narrative of film history taught in colleges and textbooks. There was no such
thing as “heterosexuality” until, in the late nineteenth century,
“homosexuality” was coined to define its alleged opposite. To consider
cinematic history without identifying the queerness that makes its “non-queerness”
definable is irresponsible, or at least shortsighted.
“To locate queerness on film, one needs to be attuned to the erotic longing that courses through the medium.”
“The heart wants what it wants, but as Stranger by the Lake reminds us, so do the genitals. ”
Room Tone 2023
Look back on the collaborations that defined our year, captured in this compilation of moments that our crew shared with the artists, critics, and scholars who talked with us about the movies.
For the Love of the Con
The best movies about con artists highlight something their makers share with the fraudsters they depict: an intuitive sense of people’s desires and a talent for ruthless manipulation.
You have no items in your shopping cart