Home Cultural Studies 8. New queer cinema and lesbian films
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

8. New queer cinema and lesbian films

View more publications by Edinburgh University Press
New Queer Cinema
This chapter is in the book New Queer Cinema
8. NEW QUEER CINEMAAND LESBIAN FILMSAnat PickIntroduction: `Q' for CuriousTheimmediateaimofthischapteristoprovideacriticaloverviewoftheplaceof lesbian films within New Queer Cinema. The task is not an easy one in afieldwhichisascontentiousasitisbroad.Themaindifficultyseemstobehowbesttoapproacharangeofdefinitions,from`new'to`queer'to`lesbian',sincewith every one of them, we risk biting off more than we can chew. As oftenhappens with formal titles, so with the New Queer Cinema, its lifespan(`officially'1992±2000)nowseemstohavebeenagreatdealshorterthanthatof the movies that first gave it its name. The same goes for its filmic legacies,which have outlived it. What, then, is New Queer Cinema? Is there, corre-spondingly, a Ne wLesbian Cinema? And if so, ho wdoes lesbian film fit intothe Ne wQueer frame work? I hope to be able to offer some helpful complica-tions, if not positive replies to these questions.It was critic B. Ruby Rich who pin-pointed an influx of films made by andabout gays that were redefining queer filmmaking in pre-Millennial, AIDS-affectedAmerica.Thesefilms,forexampleToddHaynes'Poison(1991),TomKalin'sSwoon(1991), Christopher MuÈnch'sThe Hours and Times(1991),MarlonRiggs'Tongues Untied(1991),GreggAraki'sThe Living End(1992),or Jennie Livingston'sParis is Burning(1990), were all low budget andformally inventive films, temperamentally confrontational, and deliciouslytransgressive.1Rich dubbed this sensibility `Homo Pomo': homosexual (sig-nificantly male, and, we might add predominantly American and white), andpostmodern. By the year 2000, however, Rich declared that New QueerCinema did not constitute a `movement' but, as it turns out, a `moment'.2103
© 2022, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

8. NEW QUEER CINEMAAND LESBIAN FILMSAnat PickIntroduction: `Q' for CuriousTheimmediateaimofthischapteristoprovideacriticaloverviewoftheplaceof lesbian films within New Queer Cinema. The task is not an easy one in afieldwhichisascontentiousasitisbroad.Themaindifficultyseemstobehowbesttoapproacharangeofdefinitions,from`new'to`queer'to`lesbian',sincewith every one of them, we risk biting off more than we can chew. As oftenhappens with formal titles, so with the New Queer Cinema, its lifespan(`officially'1992±2000)nowseemstohavebeenagreatdealshorterthanthatof the movies that first gave it its name. The same goes for its filmic legacies,which have outlived it. What, then, is New Queer Cinema? Is there, corre-spondingly, a Ne wLesbian Cinema? And if so, ho wdoes lesbian film fit intothe Ne wQueer frame work? I hope to be able to offer some helpful complica-tions, if not positive replies to these questions.It was critic B. Ruby Rich who pin-pointed an influx of films made by andabout gays that were redefining queer filmmaking in pre-Millennial, AIDS-affectedAmerica.Thesefilms,forexampleToddHaynes'Poison(1991),TomKalin'sSwoon(1991), Christopher MuÈnch'sThe Hours and Times(1991),MarlonRiggs'Tongues Untied(1991),GreggAraki'sThe Living End(1992),or Jennie Livingston'sParis is Burning(1990), were all low budget andformally inventive films, temperamentally confrontational, and deliciouslytransgressive.1Rich dubbed this sensibility `Homo Pomo': homosexual (sig-nificantly male, and, we might add predominantly American and white), andpostmodern. By the year 2000, however, Rich declared that New QueerCinema did not constitute a `movement' but, as it turns out, a `moment'.2103
© 2022, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
Downloaded on 14.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781474463768-013/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOorLsuq2pQwm3uABUUi6PGhnbErsyBqi31-Ru3zqGuFnQVuSN8bt
Scroll to top button