December 12, 2024
FILM: QUEER
DIRECTED BY: LUCA GUADAGNINO
STARRING: DANIEL CRAIG, DREW STARKEY, JASON SCHWARTZMAN
RATING: 2 ½ out of 4 stars
By Dan Pal
Luca Guadagnino is having an interesting year. Back in the spring, we saw the release of his film Challengers starring Zendaya, Josh O’Connor, and Mike Faist. While not a huge critical hit the film proved to be pretty popular among an audience that was intrigued by the idea of a love triangle between the three leads. Now comes Queer, based on a story by William S. Burroughs, which was written in 1952 but not published until 1985. It is a largely autobiographical piece centering on Daniel Craig as a version of Burroughs named William Lee who becomes obsessed with Eugene Allerton, played by Drew Starkey. The film has a very promising start but sadly falls apart during its second half, which is a shame because there really is a lot to admire about the first half.
First off, all attention is and should be placed on Craig, who gives a great performance that couldn’t be further away from what he did during his run as James Bond, or even his work in the Knives Out films. He’s older, less obviously attractive, more flamboyant, and American accented. Regarding the last of these, it’s almost shocking to hear what sounds like Bryan Cranston’s voice come out of his mouth. As Lee, he also uses his eyes, charm, and animated movements to focus on his obsession with Allerton.
The other key cast members include Jason Schwartzman in an unrecognizable role as Lee’s buddy Joe who is overweight and disheveled to an even greater degree than he was in his other 2024 film, Between the Temples. Drew Starkey is very handsome and clean cut as Allerton. With his southern drawl, he’s the kind of younger man that older gay men could be drawn to quite easily. In this regard, it’s fascinating to watch the interaction between Craig and Starkey. One could imagine a young Craig playing Starkey’s part a couple of decades ago. He is now the one who looks older and aged seeking the beauty of youth. Clearly the character’s best days (if he truly had any) are now in the distant past.
While attractive, Starkey captures the selfishness and disinterest that Allerton feels for Lee. Allerton even goes so far as to spend time with a red headed female in the same establishment that Lee and other gay friends frequent. Allerton says he’s not “queer” but seems mostly willing to do what Lee asks him to. Lee is essentially his “daddy” but Allerton holds most of the power. The sex scenes (and yes there are a couple) are pretty tastefully shot – something Guadanigno is experienced with after Challengers and the huge Call Me By Your Name a few years back.
There’s also a lot to be said about his use of music, which features an interesting mix of songs by artists including Nirvana, Prince, Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross. The overall score by the latter two is original and at times very beautifully used in the film.
The 1950s setting for the first two of what are three chapters and an epilogue of the story, is also quite striking. While much of the film is set in Mexico City, the shoot was actually held in Italy and Ecuador.
So, where did Guadagnino go wrong? Frankly, I’d heard some not so positive reviews of the film after its premiere at the Venice International Film Festival in September. Watching the first seventy minutes or so, I couldn’t see the problem. However, everything goes downhill during the final hour. Plot-wise, Lee and Allerton travel to South America to visit a “botanist in the jungle” where Lee seems to want a transcendent experience and explore “telepathy.” This entire section feels like a separate film. Gone is the authenticity that made the first two chapters come alive as a story of 1950s love. The set used for this one looks artificial and completely studio created. It’s closer to Gilligan’s Island than the Hawaii shot Lost. Aside from that, Guadagnino attempts to take the film into David Lynchian surrealistic territory. There is a sexual “dance” of sorts between Lee and Allerton that the director seems to want to make look artful but it comes across as grotesque and almost laughable.
Some might say that this chapter is meant to illustrate the hallucinogenic state that Lee has entered into. The problem is that with its setting and other broad characters it feels and looks too over the top, which the film never recovers from. The epilogue is also unsatisfying and a bit too obtuse to really work as a resolution to Lee’s larger issues.
That last hour is really a disappointment. Guadagnino could have edited it down and left us with something more fulfilling. It’s nice that he attempted this partially experimental journey but compared to his more successful films, it just doesn’t realize it’s potential as an insightful adaptation.
Queer opens theatrically this week.
FILM: QUEER
DIRECTED BY: LUCA GUADAGNINO
STARRING: DANIEL CRAIG, DREW STARKEY, JASON SCHWARTZMAN
RATING: 2 ½ out of 4 stars
By Dan Pal
Luca Guadagnino is having an interesting year. Back in the spring, we saw the release of his film Challengers starring Zendaya, Josh O’Connor, and Mike Faist. While not a huge critical hit the film proved to be pretty popular among an audience that was intrigued by the idea of a love triangle between the three leads. Now comes Queer, based on a story by William S. Burroughs, which was written in 1952 but not published until 1985. It is a largely autobiographical piece centering on Daniel Craig as a version of Burroughs named William Lee who becomes obsessed with Eugene Allerton, played by Drew Starkey. The film has a very promising start but sadly falls apart during its second half, which is a shame because there really is a lot to admire about the first half.
First off, all attention is and should be placed on Craig, who gives a great performance that couldn’t be further away from what he did during his run as James Bond, or even his work in the Knives Out films. He’s older, less obviously attractive, more flamboyant, and American accented. Regarding the last of these, it’s almost shocking to hear what sounds like Bryan Cranston’s voice come out of his mouth. As Lee, he also uses his eyes, charm, and animated movements to focus on his obsession with Allerton.
The other key cast members include Jason Schwartzman in an unrecognizable role as Lee’s buddy Joe who is overweight and disheveled to an even greater degree than he was in his other 2024 film, Between the Temples. Drew Starkey is very handsome and clean cut as Allerton. With his southern drawl, he’s the kind of younger man that older gay men could be drawn to quite easily. In this regard, it’s fascinating to watch the interaction between Craig and Starkey. One could imagine a young Craig playing Starkey’s part a couple of decades ago. He is now the one who looks older and aged seeking the beauty of youth. Clearly the character’s best days (if he truly had any) are now in the distant past.
While attractive, Starkey captures the selfishness and disinterest that Allerton feels for Lee. Allerton even goes so far as to spend time with a red headed female in the same establishment that Lee and other gay friends frequent. Allerton says he’s not “queer” but seems mostly willing to do what Lee asks him to. Lee is essentially his “daddy” but Allerton holds most of the power. The sex scenes (and yes there are a couple) are pretty tastefully shot – something Guadanigno is experienced with after Challengers and the huge Call Me By Your Name a few years back.
There’s also a lot to be said about his use of music, which features an interesting mix of songs by artists including Nirvana, Prince, Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross. The overall score by the latter two is original and at times very beautifully used in the film.
The 1950s setting for the first two of what are three chapters and an epilogue of the story, is also quite striking. While much of the film is set in Mexico City, the shoot was actually held in Italy and Ecuador.
So, where did Guadagnino go wrong? Frankly, I’d heard some not so positive reviews of the film after its premiere at the Venice International Film Festival in September. Watching the first seventy minutes or so, I couldn’t see the problem. However, everything goes downhill during the final hour. Plot-wise, Lee and Allerton travel to South America to visit a “botanist in the jungle” where Lee seems to want a transcendent experience and explore “telepathy.” This entire section feels like a separate film. Gone is the authenticity that made the first two chapters come alive as a story of 1950s love. The set used for this one looks artificial and completely studio created. It’s closer to Gilligan’s Island than the Hawaii shot Lost. Aside from that, Guadagnino attempts to take the film into David Lynchian surrealistic territory. There is a sexual “dance” of sorts between Lee and Allerton that the director seems to want to make look artful but it comes across as grotesque and almost laughable.
Some might say that this chapter is meant to illustrate the hallucinogenic state that Lee has entered into. The problem is that with its setting and other broad characters it feels and looks too over the top, which the film never recovers from. The epilogue is also unsatisfying and a bit too obtuse to really work as a resolution to Lee’s larger issues.
That last hour is really a disappointment. Guadagnino could have edited it down and left us with something more fulfilling. It’s nice that he attempted this partially experimental journey but compared to his more successful films, it just doesn’t realize it’s potential as an insightful adaptation.
Queer opens theatrically this week.