All film movements are important because all film movements push the boundaries of the medium in some way. What separates film from other mediums is in how many ways it can be manipulated, thanks to its audio-visual nature. A film movement can be purely focused on expanding narrative, making use of new technology, experimenting with the language of editing, disregarding traditional shot compositions, producing and releasing films in new markets, or showcasing new acting techniques or set design. This is to say that filmmakers have so many creative choices, both behind and in-front of the camera, that multiple filmmakers questioning just one of those choices can lead to the synthesis of a film movement. What sets the great film movements apart from the average is the ability to make a lasting change to the filmmaking landscape. However, there is another tier of movement: that which goes beyond film and contributes to society and culture. David Bordwell, in his essay Doing Film History, would categorize this type of film movement as a “Social/cultural/political history: focusing on the role of cinema in the larger society”. The New Queer Cinema is such a movement; it comes from humble, independent beginnings, but eventually influences big-budget pictures and, uniquely, helps shift public viewpoint on a social movement in a positive way.
The term “New Queer Cinema” was invented by B. Ruby Rich. She uses it to describe the time period in the early 1990s when movies by queer filmmakers centered around queer themes and characters began to appear frequently at independent film festivals and receive critical acclaim. This is not to say that there were no films displaying gay or lesbian themes prior to the 1990s. The 1970s and 1980s had their fair share of queer topics in film following the abandonment of the production code, especially abroad where the production code had never been enforced. Notable examples of films featuring gay characters in the 1970s-1980s include Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Fox and His Friends (1975) and Querelle (1982), Christopher Larkin’s A Very Natural Thing (1974), and Frank Ripploh’s Taxi zum Klo (1981). However, the New Queer Cinema movement is categorized as beginning in the 1990s due to 1992 being “a watershed year for independent gay and lesbian film and video” (Rich, 16). Rich cites the film festival premieres of Christopher Munch’s The Hours and Times (1991), Tom Kalin’s Swoon (1992), Gregg Araki’s The Living End (1992), and Laurie Lynd’s R.S.V.P. (1991) as well as the major, New York City premieres of Paul Verhoeven’s Basic Instinct (1992) and Derek Jarman’s Edward II (1991) as the start of the New Queer Cinema. Notably, two films considered to be the start of the New Queer Cinema won major awards at the 1991 Sundance Film Festival; Todd Haynes’ feature film debut, Poison, and Jennie Livingston’s Paris is Burning won the Grand Jury Prize for Drama and the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary, respectively. Rich writes that Robert Redford received questions regarding the large number of “gay films at his film festival” (Rich, 18) and that while his answer was that the festival had become more welcoming to gays and lesbians, “He could just as easily have said, These are simply the best films being made” (Rich, 18).
New Queer Cinema starting in the festival circuit is certainly unique. It is true that most film movements start in the lower-budget, art cinema crowds, but having a movement start unplanned, purely as a result of changing social climate and the clear need of independent directors to tell stories close to their heart is almost unheard of. These early films in the New Queer Movement were not made because of economic viability or the guarantee of being picked up by large distribution companies, they were made because the directors thought that it was the right time to tell them. Many of the early films in the movement deal with sentiments the directors or writers felt during the 80s AIDS crisis: anger towards the government, alienation, a wonder and excitement for exploring sexuality, and agony over the loss of loved ones. The New Queer Cinema serves as a testament to the power of directors’ individuality shining through in films. B. Ruby Rich writes, “the new queer films and videos aren’t all the same and don’t share a single aesthetic vocabulary, strategy, or concern. Nonetheless they are united by a common style[…] In all of them, there are traces of appropriation, pastiche, and irony[…] with social constructionism very much in mind” (Rich, 18). However, Michael Bronski writes about a common plot point of New Queer Cinema in his essay “Positive Images & the Coming Out Film: THE ART AND POLITICS OF GAY AND LESBIAN CINEMA”. He claims that this common narrative of “coming out” presents a problem; “At their best, they can focus on the minutia, complications, and even the ambivalence of coming out” (Bronski), though the common narrative can also be boring if handled too realistically or simplistically, perhaps because of how common it is. That being said, not every film in the New Queer Cinema movement is a coming out story, it is just common because it is something that most of the queer filmmaker’s themselves have had to face. While it is not unheard of for a film movement to represent a group of young, talented filmmakers breaking into the industry, the New Queer Cinema uniquely fights against a sort of Hollywood glamour by focusing on shifting social norms and identity politics.
That is not to say that the movement never became financially viable; quite the opposite, in fact. The immediate impact of the movement can be observed throughout the 1990s. The same directors who were responsible for the beginning of the movement continue making films. Some, such as Gregg Araki with his “Teen Apocalypse Trilogy” (Hart, 5), continue with their independent work, while others, such as Todd Haynes with Velvet Goldmine (1998), are able to work with larger budgets and receive mainstream critical success, including Academy Award nominations. Another effect of the movement is that directors who are not considered to be part of the initial movement are able to have more freedom when it comes to including queer characters in their films. The Wachowskis’ first film, Bound (1996), was a violent noir thriller that featured the two main characters in a fully on-screen, sexual, lesbian romance and was produced by the Dino De Laurentiis Company. Films such as Gods and Monsters (1998) and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994) received immediate critical acclaim and Academy Award wins. However, it is the lasting effect of the movement to the present day which sets it apart from other movements. In the early 2000s, some film and television critics wondered if having queer characters was important anymore, considering that the vehement opposition to gay characters had died down; “a mere half-decade after Ellen DeGeneres came out to 36 million viewers, it doesn’t matter much who’s gay, who’s bi, who’s a cross-dresser and who isn’t” (Grove). In the year 2000, Dawson’s Creek became “the first network TV series in history to show two teenage boys romantically kissing” (Rice). Just four years after that, Degrassi; The Next Generation, a Canadian TV show aimed at teens, would show “a major teen character come out—and fall in love with a classmate” (Rowe). However, Michelangelo Signorile describes viewpoints like Grove’s as “An eerie apathy, coupled with an ignorance of recent history” in his opinion piece “Ex-gay. Too gay. Postgay. What happened to gay?”. Regardless of disagreements on just how accepted queer characters were as compared to queer people in real life, it is clear that thanks to the inclusion of queer characters in media and political and social activism, queer people had, by the end of the 1990s, become widely acceptable and financially viable subjects for film.
The movement’s effects do not end once queer characters have become accepted. Many notable directors of the time continue to work with increasingly large budgets and audiences while still exploring queer themes. Todd Haynes’ most recent film at the time of writing, Carol (2015), focused on a fictional lesbian romance adapted from the 1952 novel The Price of Salt and was a box office and critical success. At the 89th Academy Awards, the award for best picture was given to Moonlight (2016), a film about the fictional life of a young gay man growing up in Florida. In the media climate of the 2010s, it is not uncommon for one to see gay or lesbian characters incorporated into television shows or films. This alone proves that New Queer Cinema has been an effective and lasting movement in the cultural aspect of modern society.
It can be hard to make statements on the importance of film movements. Truly, modern film would not be as it is without the combination of all film movements. However, no film movement is quite like New Queer Cinema. To start as an unplanned rush on film festivals and eventually work in tandem with political activism to influence cultural acceptance of sexual identities is unheard of in terms of film movements. In addition to that, as quoted from B. Ruby Rich earlier, they simply are great films. The early films of the movement demonstrate the landscape of independent films in the 1990s, while later entries display how broadly the ideologies of queer filmmakers can be applied to their work. It is because of these reasons that New Queer cinema is culturally valuable, and entirely worth studying.
Works Cited:
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Dir. Stephan Elliot. Gramercy Pictures, 1994.
Basic Instinct. Dir. Paul Verhoeven. Tristar Pictures, 1992.
Bordwell, David. “Doing Film History.” David Bordwell’s Website on Cinema. Sept. 2008. Web. 16 Apr. 2017
Bound. Dir. The Wachowskis. Dino De Laurentiis Company, 1996.
Bronski, Michael. “Positive Images & the Coming Out Film: THE ART AND POLITICS OF GAY AND LESBIAN CINEMA.” Cineaste 26.1 (2000): 20. Entertainment Weekly 562 (2000): 23. Film and Television Literature Index with Full Text [EBSCO]. Web. 16 Apr. 2017.
Carol. Dir. Todd Haynes. The Weinstein Company, 2015.
Edward II. Dir. Derek Jarman. BBC Films, 1991.
Fox and His Friends. Dir. Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Tango Film, 1975.
Gods and Monsters. Dir. Bill Condon. Lions Gate Films, 1998.
Hart, Kylo-Patri R. Images for a Generation Doomed: The Films and Career of Gregg Araki. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2010. Print.
The Hours and Times. Dir. Christopher Münch. Good Machine, 1991.
The Living End. Dir. Gregg Araki. Cineplex Odeon Films, 1992.
Moonlight. Dir. Barry Jenkins. A24, 2016.
Paris is Burning. Dir. Jennie Livingston. Off White Productions, Inc., 1990.
Poison. Dir. Todd Haynes. Killer Films, 1991.
Querelle. Dir. Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Gaumont, 1982.
Rice, Lynette, and Justine Ellias. “Hollywood’s Gay Power Surge.” Entertainment Weekly 562 (2000): 23. Film and Television Literature Index with Full Text [EBSCO]. Web. 16 Apr. 2017.
Rich, B. Ruby. New Queer Cinema: The Director’s Cut. Durham: Duke UP, 2013. Print.
Rowe, Michael, and Wenzel Jones. “Going Where No Two Boys Have Gone Before.” Advocate 907 (2004): 40-44. Film and Television Literature Index with Full Text [EBSCO]. Web. 16 Apr. 2017.
Signorile, Michelangelo. “Ex-gay. Too Gay. Postgay. What Happened to Gay?” Advocate 776 (1999): 71. Film and Television Literature Index with Full Text [EBSCO]. Web. 16 Apr. 2017.
Swoon. Dir. Tom Kalin. Fine Line Features, 1992.
Taxi zum Klo. Dir. Frank Ripploh. Promovision International, 1981.
Velvet Goldmine. Dir. Todd Haynes. Killer Films, 1998.
A Very Natural Thing. Dir. Christopher Larkin. New Line Cinema, 1974.