Queer History 135: Let’s Go to the Cinema by Wendy🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🌈
Queer Movie watching Read on Substack
The Blood-Stained Birth of Visibility
Picture this: It’s 1970, and America’s movie theaters reek of stale popcorn, cigarette smoke, and something else—the acrid stench of fear. Fear of bodies that didn’t conform, desires that couldn’t be spoken, identities that existed only in shadows and whispered confessions. Then, like a fucking earthquake splitting the earth’s crust, came The Boys in the Band—not tiptoeing through Hollywood’s garden of heteronormative roses, but kicking down the door with combat boots and declaring war on silence.
William Friedkin’s adaptation of Mart Crowley’s play didn’t just put gay men on screen; it threw them there bleeding, bitching, and beautifully broken. The audience could taste the bitter cocktail of self-loathing mixed with razor-sharp wit, could feel the electric tension crackling between characters who wielded words like switchblades. This wasn’t representation—this was revolution disguised as entertainment, a Molotov cocktail hurled at the pristine facade of American cinema.
The psychological impact on LGBTQ+ viewers was seismic. For the first time, queers sitting in darkened theaters saw themselves reflected not as tragic figures destined for suicide or sanitized saints, but as complex, contradictory, gloriously fucked-up human beings. The film’s unflinching portrayal of internalized homophobia—characters tearing each other apart with vicious precision—served as both mirror and exorcism. Viewers could finally name the demons that had been eating them alive, could see their own struggles projected thirty feet high in Technicolor fury.
Trans Bodies on Fire: The Gender-Fucking Revolution
Before there was language, before there were support groups or pride parades, there was The Rocky Horror Picture Show—a glittering, sequined middle finger raised high against every gender binary that dared exist. Tim Curry’s Dr. Frank-N-Furter didn’t just cross-dress; he obliterated the very concept of fixed identity, serving looks that could melt steel and charm that could seduce a nun. The film became a weekly religious experience for outcasts and misfits, transforming movie theaters into sanctuaries where “abnormal” became sacrament.
The sensory assault was deliberate and intoxicating: the smell of cheap makeup mixing with nervous sweat, the sound of fishnet stockings ripping as audience members transformed themselves into their truest selves, the taste of liberation on tongues that had been silenced for too long. Rocky Horror created a space where gender became performance art, where conformity went to die, and where every Saturday night became a resurrection.
The psychological liberation was profound. Trans viewers found validation in Frank-N-Furter’s unapologetic embrace of fluidity, while questioning viewers discovered permission to explore identities they’d never dared name. The film’s interactive nature—audiences shouting back at the screen, participating in the narrative—created a communal catharsis that individual therapy could never match.
Orlando arrived two decades later like a ethereal fever dream, with Tilda Swinton embodying centuries of gender transformation through Sally Potter’s lens. Here was gender not as costume but as evolution, not as crisis but as natural progression. The film’s languid pacing forced viewers to marinate in ambiguity, to sit with discomfort until it transformed into acceptance, then into celebration.
The Crying Game hit different—like a sucker punch followed by a tender kiss. Neil Jordan’s thriller weaponized audience assumptions, then forced viewers to confront their own transphobia in real-time. The revelation about Dil became a cultural watershed moment, dividing film history into before and after. Suddenly, dinner table conversations across America were grappling with questions that had never been asked out loud.
The psychological impact on trans viewers was complex and often contradictory. Some found validation in seeing trans characters as more than punchlines or victims, while others felt exploited by the shock-value treatment of trans identity. The film sparked conversations that were long overdue, even when those conversations were messy, uncomfortable, and occasionally hostile.
Leather, Longing, and the Masculine Mystique
Cruising descended into theaters like a demon emerging from hell’s own basement, dragging audiences through New York’s leather underground with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the skull. William Friedkin didn’t just film gay culture; he dissected it with surgical precision, exposing the raw nerves where desire meets violence, where identity becomes performance, where the line between hunter and hunted dissolves in strobe lights and poppers.
The film’s sensory assault was overwhelming: the throb of disco basslines that you felt in your chest cavity, the smell of leather and sweat and something darker, the visual overload of bodies in motion, muscles straining against restraints both literal and metaphorical. Al Pacino’s descent into this world became every viewer’s journey into their own shadow self, the parts of desire that polite society pretended didn’t exist.
The psychological effects were explosive and divisive. Gay men in theaters found themselves simultaneously aroused and terrified, seeing their community’s most extreme margins projected for mainstream consumption. Some felt exposed, violated, their private world stripped naked for heterosexual titillation. Others felt liberated by the film’s refusal to sanitize gay desire, its acknowledgment that sexuality could be dangerous, transgressive, and transformative.
Sunday Bloody Sunday offered a different kind of revelation—mature, sophisticated, unapologetically honest about love’s messy realities. John Schlesinger’s triangular love story featuring Peter Finch as an openly gay man navigating desire without shame created a new template for queer cinema. This wasn’t tragedy or comedy; this was life, served neat without the chaser of societal judgment.
The film’s matter-of-fact treatment of gay relationships was revolutionary in its ordinariness. No coming-out trauma, no tragic endings, no apologetic explanations—just human beings loving, losing, and continuing to breathe. For LGBTQ+ viewers, this representation was oxygen for souls that had been suffocating on a diet of tragic queers and comedic stereotypes.
Lesbian Desire: From Shadows to Sunlight
Lesbian cinema in this era moved from whispered suggestions to bold declarations, from tragic endings to triumphant beginnings. The Killing of Sister George emerged from the underground like a feral cat, all claws and snarls and magnificent rage. Robert Aldrich’s brutal examination of lesbian relationships didn’t flinch from ugliness—the manipulation, the internalized homophobia, the way oppression could turn love into a weapon.
Beryl Reid’s performance was a masterclass in controlled demolition, watching a woman destroy everything she touched while desperately grasping for connection. The film’s unflinching portrayal of lesbian relationships—complex, messy, and occasionally toxic—provided representation that was real rather than idealized. For lesbian viewers, seeing their community portrayed with full humanity, including its shadows, was both painful and profoundly validating.
Desert Hearts offered redemption and possibility, Donna Deitch’s adaptation of Jane Rule’s novel serving up hope like cold water in a desert. Set in 1950s Reno, the film followed an academic’s journey from divorce to self-discovery, from social conformity to authentic desire. The Nevada landscape became a metaphor for internal transformation—vast, beautiful, and dangerous.
The sensory details were crucial: the crack of pool balls echoing like gunshots, the smell of cigarettes and whiskey mixing with perfume and possibility, the heat radiating from skin finally allowed to want what it wanted. For lesbian viewers, Desert Hearts offered a template for their own coming-out narratives—messy, beautiful, and ultimately triumphant.
Lianna brought lesbian experience into the suburban mainstream with John Sayles’ sensitive direction. The film’s psychological realism was groundbreaking—showing the internal process of sexual awakening without sensationalizing or pathologizing it. Viewers could taste the protagonist’s confusion, feel her excitement and terror as she navigated new desires while dismantling old assumptions about herself.
The AIDS Crisis: Love in the Time of Dying
Longtime Companion arrived like a punch to the solar plexus, chronicling AIDS’ devastating impact on a circle of gay friends with unflinching honesty. Norman René’s ensemble piece transformed personal tragedy into universal human drama, forcing audiences to confront the epidemic’s toll not through statistics but through faces, voices, and stories.
The film’s emotional brutality was necessary and healing. Viewers experienced the full spectrum of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and something resembling acceptance. The beach scene, where surviving characters imagine their dead friends joining them one last time, became a collective catharsis for a community drowning in loss.
For LGBTQ+ viewers, Longtime Companion provided validation for their grief, rage, and resilience. The film acknowledged that gay relationships were worth mourning, that gay lives had value, that gay love deserved recognition. In a world that often seemed indifferent to queer suffering, the film became a memorial, a battle cry, and a love letter all at once.
Parting Glances offered a different perspective on the crisis—intimate, funny, and heartbreakingly human. Bill Sherwood’s New York snapshot captured gay life with humor and tenderness, refusing to let AIDS define the entire gay experience. The film’s portrayal of friendship, love, and community in the face of mortality provided a blueprint for survival.
International Voices: Expanding the Revolution
The revolution wasn’t contained by borders. My Beautiful Laundrette mixed racial politics with queer desire against Thatcherite Britain’s backdrop, creating social dynamite that exploded conventions about class, race, and sexuality. Stephen Frears’ direction transformed a love story between Omar and Johnny into a meditation on identity, economics, and the price of conformity.
The film’s sensory details were crucial—the smell of industrial detergent mixing with forbidden desire, the sound of washing machines providing rhythm for secret encounters, the visual contrast between public respectability and private rebellion. For viewers navigating multiple marginalized identities, the film offered recognition that oppression could be intersectional and resistance could be revolutionary.
Entre Nous explored female friendship and desire in post-war France with Diane Kurys’ autobiographical honesty. The film’s examination of emotional intimacy challenging conventional marriage provided a template for understanding relationships that existed outside traditional categories. The psychological complexity of female friendship—its intensity, its potential for transformation, its threat to established order—was portrayed with rare sensitivity.
The Aesthetic Revolution: Beauty as Resistance
These films didn’t just tell different stories; they created new visual languages for desire, identity, and rebellion. The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert transformed the Australian outback into a canvas for drag performance and self-discovery, proving that authenticity could flourish in the most unlikely places.
The film’s sensory explosion was deliberate—the clash of sequins against red dirt, the sound of high heels on desert sand, the taste of dust and dreams mixing in the desert air. For drag performers and gender-nonconforming viewers, Priscilla offered validation that their art was transformative, their visibility was revolutionary, their existence was celebration.
Death in Venice provided a different aesthetic—operatic, obsessive, and devastatingly beautiful. Luchino Visconti’s adaptation of Thomas Mann’s novella used Gustav Mahler’s music to underscore Dirk Bogarde’s descent into forbidden desire on plague-ridden Italian shores. The film’s lush visuals and overwhelming music created a sensory experience that bypassed rational thought, speaking directly to the subconscious where desire lives.
Psychological Warfare: The Internal Revolution
The psychological impact of these films on LGBTQ+ viewers cannot be overstated. For generations raised on invisibility or tragic representation, seeing complex, fully-realized queer characters was transformative therapy. These films provided:
Validation: Characters who experienced similar struggles, desires, and triumphs Language: Words and concepts for experiences that had been nameless Community: The knowledge that others shared these experiences Hope: Evidence that queer lives could include joy, love, and fulfillment Rage: Permission to be angry about oppression and discrimination Pride: Models for living authentically despite social pressure
The films also created psychological discomfort that was productive. They forced viewers to confront internalized homophobia, challenge assumptions about gender and sexuality, and grapple with the contradictions between public personas and private desires.
Cultural Warfare: Changing Hearts and Minds
These 24 films didn’t just reflect cultural change; they catalyzed it. Each screening became an act of resistance, each ticket purchase a vote for visibility, each conversation sparked by these films a crack in the foundation of heteronormative assumptions.
The films created cultural currency for LGBTQ+ experiences. References to Rocky Horror became shorthand for gender fluidity. The Boys in the Band provided vocabulary for gay male relationships. Desert Hearts offered a template for lesbian coming-out narratives. These films became cultural touchstones, reference points for understanding and discussing queer experience.
The broader cultural impact was seismic. Mainstream audiences encountered LGBTQ+ characters as fully-realized human beings rather than stereotypes or cautionary tales. The films forced conversations that hadn’t happened before, challenged assumptions that had gone unquestioned, and planted seeds of empathy in hostile soil.
The Legacy: Revolution Continues
These 24 films from 1970-1995 created the foundation for everything that followed. They proved that LGBTQ+ stories could be commercially viable, critically acclaimed, and culturally significant. They trained audiences to expect complexity rather than stereotypes, authenticity rather than exploitation.
The psychological impact on LGBTQ+ viewers created ripple effects that continue today. Viewers who found validation in these films went on to create art, build families, fight for rights, and live openly. The films provided models for resistance, templates for authenticity, and permission to exist unapologetically.
The cultural impact was equally profound. These films shifted the conversation from whether LGBTQ+ people deserved representation to how that representation should evolve. They created space for the explosion of queer cinema that followed, from Brokeback Mountain to Moonlight to The Danish Girl.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Revolution
These 24 films didn’t just entertain; they waged war against invisibility, fought battles against shame, and won victories for authenticity. They transformed movie theaters into battlegrounds, screens into mirrors, and stories into weapons of mass liberation.
The revolution they started continues in every Pride parade, every coming-out conversation, every film that dares to show LGBTQ+ characters as complex, worthy, and fully human. These films proved that visibility is power, that stories can change hearts, and that cinema can be a force for liberation.
For LGBTQ+ viewers who discovered these films in darkened theaters, on late-night television, or through word-of-mouth recommendations, the impact was profound and lasting. These films didn’t just reflect their experiences; they validated their existence, honored their struggles, and celebrated their humanity.
The blood, sweat, and tears that went into making these films—both literally and metaphorically—created a legacy that continues to inspire, challenge, and transform. They remind us that art can be revolutionary, that visibility is political, and that sometimes the most radical act is simply refusing to disappear.
These 24 films blazed a trail through the wilderness of cultural invisibility, creating a path that others could follow. They proved that LGBTQ+ stories weren’t just worth telling; they were essential to telling the complete story of human experience. The revolution they started continues, and their impact will be felt for generations to come.
Citations
- Rich, Ruby B. 2013 “New Queer Cinema: The Director’s Cut“
- Turner, K. 2023 “The Queer Film Guide: 100 great movies that tell LGBTQIA+ stories”
Scottie's Playtime 