If we were forced to declare why “Grey Gardens” became a cult classic among gay men, it would be all the juicy quotes that have become part of the queer lexicon.

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of its theatrical release this month, the landmark documentary profiles two eccentrics: Edith Ewing Bouvier Beale and her daughter, Edith Bouvier Beale (known as “Big” and “Little” Edie, respectively), the aunt and cousin of former first lady Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis and socialite Lee Radziwell. Once moving within an elite circle of American aristocrats, they had fallen into poverty and were living in isolation at their run-down estate (the Grey Gardens of the title) in East Hampton, Long Island; they re-entered the public eye in 1972 after local authorities threatened eviction and demolition of their mansion over health code violations, prompting their famous relatives to swoop in and pay for the necessary repairs to avoid further family scandal. 

At the time, Radziwell had enlisted filmmaking brothers David and Albert Maysles to take footage for a later-abandoned project of her own, bringing them along when she went to put in an appearance at the Grey Gardens clean-up efforts. It was their first encounter with the Beales; the second came two years later, when they returned with their cameras (but without Radziwell) and proceeded to make documentary history, turning the two Edies into unlikely cultural icons in the process.

On paper, it reads like something painful: two embittered former socialites, a mother and daughter living among a legion of cats and raccoons in the literal ruins of their former life, where they dwell on old memories, rehash old conflicts, and take out their resentments on each other, attempting to keep up appearances while surviving on a diet that may or may not include cat food. Truthfully, it is sometimes difficult to watch, which is why it’s easier to approach from surface level, focusing on the “wacky” eccentricities and seeing the Beales as objects for ridicule. 

Yet to do so is to miss the true brilliance of a movie that is irresistible, unforgettable, and fascinating to the point of being hypnotic, and that’s because of the Beales themselves, who are far too richly human to be dismissed on the basis of conventional judgments.

First is Little Edie, in her endless array of headscarves (to cover her hair loss from alopecia) and her ever-changing wardrobe of DIY “revolutionary costumes,” a one-time model and might-have-been showgirl who is obviously thrilled at having an audience and rises giddily to the occasion like a pro. Flamboyant, candid, and smarter than we think, she’s also fearlessly vulnerable; she gives us access to an emotional landscape shaped by the heartbreaks of a past that’s gradually revealed as the movie goes on, and it’s her ability to pull herself together and come back fighting that wins us over. By the time she launches into her monologue about being a “S-T-A-U-N-C-H” woman, we have no doubt that it’s true.

Then there’s Big Edie, who comes across as an odd mix of imperious dowager and down-to-earth grandma. She gets her own chance to shine for the camera, especially in the scenes where she reminisces about her early days as a “successful” amateur vocalist, singing along to records of songs she used to perform as glimpses emerge of the beauty and talent she commanded in her prime. She’s more than capable of taking on her daughter in their endless squabbles, and savvy enough to score serious points in the conflict, like stirring up jealousy with her attentions to beefy young handyman Jerry – whom the younger Edie has dubbed “the Marble Faun” – when he comes around to share a feast of boiled corn-on-the-cob with them. “Jerry likes the way I do my corn,” she deadpans to the camera, even though we know it’s meant for Little Edie.

It’s not just that their eccentricities verge on camp; that’s certainly an undeniable part of the appeal, but it falls away quickly as you begin to recognize that even if these women are putting on a show for the camera, they’re still being completely themselves – and they are spectacular.

Yes, their verbal sparring is often shrill and palpably toxic – in particular, Big Edie has no qualms about belittling and shaming her daughter in an obviously calculated effort to undermine her self-esteem and discourage her from making good on her repeated threats to leave Grey Gardens. We know she is acting from fear of abandonment, but it’s cruel, all the same. 

These are the moments that disturb us more than any of the dereliction we see in their physical existence; fed by nostalgia and forged in a deep codependence that neither wants to acknowledge, their dynamic reflects years of social isolation that has made them into living ghosts, going through the habitual motions of a long-lost life, ruminating on ancient resentments, and mulling endlessly over memories of the things that led them to their outcast state. As Little Edie says early on, “It’s very difficult to keep the line between the past and the present. Do you know what I mean?”

That pithy observation, spoken conspiratorially to the Maysles’ camera, sets the tone for the entirety of “Grey Gardens,” perhaps even suggesting an appropriate point of meditation through which to contemplate everything that follows. It’s a prime example of the quotability that has helped this odd little movie endure as a fixture in queer culture; for many LGBTQ people, both Edies – born headstrong, ambitious, and independent into a social strata that only wanted its women to be well-behaved – became touchstones of frustrated longing, of living out one’s own fabulousness in isolated secrecy. Add to that shared inner experience Little Edie’s knack for turning scraps into kitschy fashion (and the goofy-but-joyous flag dance she performs as a sort of climactic topper near the end), and it should be obvious why the Maysles Brothers’ little project still resonates with the community five decades later.

Indeed, watching it in today’s cultural climate, it strikes chords that resonate through an even wider spectrum, touching on feminist themes through these two “problematic” women who have been effectively banished for refusing to fit into a mold, and on the larger issue of social and economic inequality that keeps them trapped, ultimately turning them against each other in their powerlessness.

With that in mind, it’s clear these women were never filmed to be objects of ridicule. They’re survivors in a world in which even their unimaginably wealthy relatives would rather look away, offering a bare minimum of help only when their plight becomes a matter of public family embarrassment, and the resilience they show in the face of tremendous adversity makes them worthy of celebration, instead.

That’s why “Grey Gardens” still hits close to home, why it entertains despite its darkness, and why we remember it as something bittersweet but beautiful. By the end of it, we recognize that the two Edies could be any of us, which means they are ALL of us – and if they can face their challenges with that much “revolutionary” spirit, then maybe we can be “staunch” against our adversities, too.

There is nothing radical about a queer film that plays it safe. From the fabulous shock and awe of John Waters’ obscene ethos, to the formal ruptures of New Queer Cinema in the work of Gregg Araki and Todd Haynes, to Bruce LaBruce’s incendiary provocations, LGBTQ+ filmmakers have historically carved out spaces by breaking rules. Queer cinema was staged in resistance, unsettling viewers and insisting that queer life could not be easily palatable to the masses.

Yet, that history has grown increasingly distant in a media landscape dominated by the repetitive narrative templates, endlessly repackaged and sold as “representation.” In this moment, Cutaways, the latest film from Mark Schwab, arrives as a refreshing (and unsettling) intervention. Cutaways premieres February 3rd on Amazon Prime and Vimeo on Demand.

The dark, intermittently comical film screened at the 2025 SF Queer Film Festival, but its run through the LGBTQ+ festival circuit was brief. Schwab tells the Blade, “It screened at the 2025 SF Queer Film Festival, but it was rejected by every other LGBTQ film festival I entered it into.” What he heard in response wasn’t that the film lacked quality or creative direction. “They love the film,” he explains, “but they were too afraid to program in this climate.”

The hesitation speaks less to Cutaways as an artistic project than to a broader resistance to risk in queer media. Schwab, who grew up watching queer films that transgressed conventional norms, finds the shift troubling. “I grew up with Gregg Araki, and John Waters, and Bruce LaBruce, and Todd Haynes’ Poison,” he eagerly explains, “Those were the films that I admired as a young gay boy… And now it seems like the LGBTQ community just wants everything to be a Lifetime movie, and that’s fine – but does it have to only be that?”

Cutaways refuses to play it safe, rejecting the familiar mise-en-scène that increasingly defines contemporary queer cinema. Set entirely within a Downtown Los Angeles artist space staged as an adult film set, the film follows Evan Quick, a once-respected filmmaker whose career crashes and burns after public backlash. Desperate to keep working, Evan accepts a job directing pornography, a choice that quickly sheds any comic veneer and settles into something more existential. What could have been framed as sexual provocation is deliberately restrained, trading spectacle for unease.

Schwab is clear that the adult film setting is not about provocation. “I knew I wanted to use a porn set as an arena,” he explains, “I’m not judging porn here at all.” Instead, Schwab frames the film in terms of questions that the audience considers while watching: “How did these characters get there? And what are they doing there? And how are they dealing with their issues within that world?”

That sense of entrapment – characters forced to confront themselves without escape – has long fascinated Schwab. One film that was particularly powerful for him was The Boys in the Band (1970), serving as a formative influence. “Watching these characters have to deal with each other’s relationships and issues … and they’re trapped in that party… I love that.” In Cutaways, no one can walk away. Everyone is there for a reason – a reason that audiences must figure out for themselves.

Watching Cutaways, it’s easy to read its characters through the familiar lens of victimhood. Schwab, however, resists that framing entirely. “All the characters want to be there,” he says, “It’s almost like there are no victims in the movie … They’re all exercising their own power in their own way.”

That philosophy extends to the film’s central figure, Evan Quick. Schwab isn’t interested in writing characters to be likable or unlikable so much as depicting them for who they are. “I don’t feel sympathetic to Evan, but I do feel empathetic,” he says. Evan stages a question that sits uncomfortably close to creative individuals: What happens when the work that defines you is suddenly at risk? Or as Schwab puts it: “How far is he willing to go to follow his passion?”

Despite the film’s thematic weight, Schwab rejects the notion that Cutaways is delivering a lesson. “None of my films ever have a message … They are stories,” he tells the Blade. Instead of preaching a message, Schwab’s films insist on attention to detail: “My films are no good if you’re gonna be looking at your phone at the same time … You have to pay attention … You’re just gonna miss way too much.”

Cutaways sits at an uneasy intersection between those invested in preserving the commercialized norms and a queer cinematic legacy defined by risk. That friction may explain its reception, but it also marks the film’s necessity. In an era dominated by repeatable formats and tokenized representation, Schwab’s film insists on uneasiness, ambiguity, and a love for the unpredictable.

Queer cinema must be defined by urging the audience to sit and watch – even when it’s uncomfortable. Cutaways doesn’t just recall that tradition. It reminds us why it mattered in the first place.

In 1976, a movie called “Network” electrified American moviegoers with a story in which a respected news anchor goes on the air and exhorts his viewers to go to their windows and yell, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

It’s still an iconic line, and it briefly became a familiar catch phrase in the mid-’70s lexicon of pop culture, the perfect mantra for a country worn out and jaded by a decade of civil unrest, government corruption, and the increasingly powerful corporations that were gradually extending their influence into nearly all aspects of American life. Indeed, the movie itself is an expression of that same frustration, a satire in which a man’s on-the-air mental health crisis is exploited by his corporate employers for the sake of his skyrocketing ratings – and spawns a wave of “reality” programming that sensationalizes outrage, politics, and even violence to turn it into popular entertainment for the masses. Sound familiar?

It felt like an exaggeration at the time, an absurd scenario satirizing the “anything-for-ratings” mentality that had become a talking point in the public conversation. Decades later, it’s recognized as a savvy premonition of things to come.

This, of course, is not a review of “Network.” Rather, it’s a review of the latest movie by “new queer cinema” pioneer Gus Van Sant (his first since 2018), which is a fictionalized account of a real-life on-the-air incident that happened only a few months after “Network” prompted national debate about the media’s responsibility in choosing what it should and should not broadcast – and the fact that it strikes a resonant chord for us in 2026 makes it clear that debate is as relevant as ever.

“Dead Man’s Wire” follows the events of a 63-hour hostage situation in Indianapolis that begins when Tony Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgård) shows up for an early morning appointment at the office of a mortgage company to which he is under crippling debt. Ushered into a private office for a one-on-one meeting with Dick Hall (Dacre Montgomery), son of the brokerage’s wealthy owner, he kidnaps the surprised executive at gunpoint and rigs him with a “dead man’s wire” – a device that secures a shotgun against a captive’s head that is triggered to discharge with any attempt at escape – before calling the police himself to issue demands for the release of his hostage, which include immunity for his actions, forgiveness of his debt, reimbursement for money he claims was swindled from him by the company, and an apology. 

The crisis becomes a public spectacle when Kiritsis subjects his prisoner to a harrowing trip through the streets back to his apartment, which he claims is wired with explosives. As the hours tick by, the neighborhood surrounding his building becomes a media circus. Realizing that law enforcement officials are only pretending to negotiate while they make plans to take him down, he enlists the aid of popular local radio DJ Fred Heckman (Colman Domingo) to turn the situation into a platform for airing his grievances –  and for calling out the predatory financial practices that drove him to this desperate situation in the first place.

We won’t tell you how it plays out, for the sake of avoiding spoilers, even though it’s all a matter of public record. Suffice to say that the crisis reaches a volatile climax in a live broadcast that’s literally one wrong move away from putting an explosion of unpredictable real-life violence in front of millions of TV viewers.

In 1977, the Kiritsis incident certainly contributed to ongoing concerns about violence on television, but there was another aspect of the case that grabbed public attention: Kiritsis himself. Described by those who knew him as “helpful,” “kind,” and a “hard worker,” he was hardly the image of a hardened criminal, and many Americans – who shared his anger and desperation over the opportunistic greed of a finance industry they believed was playing them for profit – could sympathize with his motives. Inevitably, he became something of a populist hero – or anti-hero, at least – for standing up to a stacked system, an underdog who spoke things many of them felt and took actions many of them wished they could take, too.

That’s the thing that makes this true-life crime adventure uniquely suited to the talents of Van Sant, a veteran indie auteur whose films have always specialized in humanizing “outsider” characters, usually pushed to the fringes of society by circumstances only partly under their own control, and often driven to desperate acts in pursuit of an unattainable dream. Tony Kiritsis, a not-so-regular “Joe” whose fumbling efforts toward financial security have been turned against him and who seeks only recompense for his losses, fits that profile to a tee, and the filmmaker gives us a version of him (aided by Skarsgård’s masterfully modulated performance) which leaves little doubt that he – from a certain point of view, at least – is the story’s unequivocal protagonist, no matter how “lawless” his actions might be.

It helps that the film gives us much more exposure to Kiritsis’ personality than could be drawn merely from the historic live broadcast that made him infamous, spending much of the movie focused on his interactions with Hall (performed with equally well-managed nuance by Montgomery) during the two days spent in the apartment, as well as his dealings with DJ Heckman (rendered with street savvy and close-to-the-chest cageyness by Domingo); for balance, we also get fly-on-the-wall access to the interplay outside between law enforcement officials (including Cary Elwes’ blue collar neighborhood cop) as they try to navigate a potentially deadly situation, and to the jockeying of an ambitious rookie street reporter (Myha’la) with the rest of the press for “scoops” with each new development.

But perhaps the interaction that finally sways us in Kiritsis’s favor takes place via phone with his captive’s mortgage tycoon father (Al Pacino, evoking every unscrupulous, amoral mob boss he’s ever played), who is willing to sacrifice his own son’s life rather than negotiate a deal. It’s a nugget of revealed avarice that was absent in the “official” coverage of the ordeal, which largely framed Kiritsis as mentally unstable and therefore implied a lack of credibility to his accusations against Meridian Mortgage. It’s also a moment that hits hard in an era when the selfishness of wealthy men feels like a particularly sore spot for so many struggling underdogs.

That’s not to say there’s an overriding political agenda to “Dead Man’s Wire,” though Van Sant’s character-driven emphasis helps make it into something more than just another tension-fueled crime story; it also works to raise the stakes by populating the story with real people instead of predictable tropes, which, coupled with cinematographer Arnaud Potier’s studied emulation of gritty ‘70s cinema and the director’s knack for inventive visual storytelling, results in a solid, intelligent, and darkly humorous thriller – and if it reconnects us to the “mad-as-hell” outrage of the “Network” era, so much the better.

After all, if the last 50 years have taught us anything about the battle between ethics and profit, it’s that profit usually wins.

There is a sameness to filmed solo performances: a performer with a microphone, a minimalist backdrop, and a linear delivery. Designed more for economic efficiency than emotional expression, the form works, but it rarely surprises.

“This is gonna be a little…different,” Emmy-nominated actor/writer/producer Scott Turner Schofield declares at the top of his new one-hour special, Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps. It’s now streaming on Kinema.

Co-Directors Andrea James and Puppett adapted Schofield’s long-running live performance into a work that understands structure as art. Built around 127 discrete stories — originally selected live and never told in the same order twice — the film resists linear autobiography. Each story stands alone; they arrive out of order, sometimes raw and live, sometimes boldly cinematic; and no one story is positioned as definitive. That structure is the thesis: identity is not linear, nobody is just one thing. 

What happens after transition has never been very interesting to mass media — is it because that would be too human? Rather than staying stuck in the amber of the moment of transition, this film invites you to sit with a person who has lived far into a future most trans people can’t imagine. It’s a detailed, balanced portrait, with humor sharp enough to puncture reverence and tenderness strong enough to survive it.

The approach places Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps in a lineage closer to Jon Leguizamo’s solo works than to a Netflix stand-up special. Like Leguizamo’s best pieces, Schofield’s film uses performance as a vehicle for history, embodiment, and cultural critique, expanding the language of solo storytelling rather than flattening it for easy consumption.

Speaking of Leguizamo, as an actor, Schofield moves effortlessly through humor, absurdity, grief, tenderness, and philosophical reflection, but the delivery remains grounded. His charm is indelible and irresistibly watchable.

Literate without being precious, Schofield’s writing lands its insights through specificity rather than thesis statements. The funniest moments aren’t jokes about gender; they’re observations about being alive, from an off-the-wall perspective. A vegetarian lasagna recipe doubles as a guide to emotional readiness; a Croatian skinny-dipping misadventure becomes accidental “feminist fieldwork.” 

One line, recalling a formative childhood memory, crystallizes the film’s emotional intelligence: “Uncle Bill’s death gave me one free day of childhood,” Schofield exclaims, recalling the first time he got to wear boys’ underwear underneath borrowed clothes after an unexpected tragedy. “One day, when I knew that, no matter what I looked like on the outside, I was who I was supposed to be underneath.” The audience bursts into laughter, but that sentence dismantles half the culture war arguments about gender. Soundbites like these are an enjoyable refrain throughout the hour-long film. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 127 Steps (@becomingamanin127easysteps)

Allen Martsch’s animation in “Step 127” lifts the piece to another level. Swirling in images that harken back to Hedwig and the Angry Inch’s touching but somehow spiritual illustrations, Schofield refuses both the Hero Myth and the Everyman narrative: “I can’t identify with either one of those men. Neither one feels quite right.” Instead, the piece insists on process, on what it means to keep becoming without knowing the ending — turning page after page.

There is rage here, and grief, and of course it is intensely political — even more so, at this moment in history. But those emotions arrive through specificity rather than slogans. When Schofield says, “It’s not death I want. It’s change,” he’s naming a fact most trans people recognize, whether they admit it or not.

Trans man leads remain exceedingly rare in narrative cinema. Films like Close to You, starring Eliot Page, mark important progress by placing a trans man at the emotional center of a fictional story. Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps offers transmasculine interiority in a different register — non-fictional and self-authored — pushing representation forward in another crucial way. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 127 Steps (@becomingamanin127easysteps)

The film’s existence is itself a low-key indictment of the industry in which trans actors remain marginalized. Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps’s production budget was crowdfunded, listing 378 community supporters in its credits. Any critique of the film is due to its lack of resources: it needs a better sound mix, two balconies of audience for the introductory monologue, and a slicker presentation overall. One can’t help but ask: what could this have been with the resources routinely afforded to far less ambitious (straight, cisgender) solo projects?

The answer feels obvious. This is an HBO special in every way but platform. It is expansive in form, rigorous in thought, and generous with its audience. It does what the best solo performance films do, using one body to tell a much larger story, without simplifying it. The question is not whether the film belongs on a larger platform. It plainly does. The question is: why isn’t it already there?

It arrives instead on Kinema, an emerging streaming platform built to support independent film through live and virtual screenings, community engagement, and social justice fundraising.

Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps deserves to be seen, not as a niche artifact, but as a benchmark for what filmed performance can be. It deserves the scale, seriousness, and cultural placement that straight cisgender solo works enjoy.

Instead, it arrives carried by community, and quietly raises the bar for what filmed performance can be.

Watch Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps now on Kinema. Find out more at 127steps.com.

Review provided by Valentin Arnold, guest to the Blade

When Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” debuted on American movie screens last September, it had a lot of things going for it: an acclaimed Hollywood auteur working with a cast that included three Oscar-winning actors, on an ambitious blockbuster with his biggest budget to date, and a $70 million advertising campaign to draw in the crowds. It was even released in IMAX. 

It was still a box office disappointment, failing to achieve its “break-even” threshold before making the jump from big screen to small via VOD rentals and streaming on HBO Max. Whatever the reason – an ambivalence toward its stars, a lack of clarity around what it was about, divisive pushback from both progressive and conservative camps over perceived messaging, or a general sense of fatigue over real-world events that had pushed potential moviegoers to their saturation point for politically charged material – audiences failed to show up for it. 

The story did not end there, of course; most critics, unconcerned with box office receipts, embraced Anderson’s grand-scale opus, and it’s now a top contender in this year’s awards race, already securing top prizes at the Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice Awards, nominated for a record number of SAG’s Actor Awards, and almost certain to be a front runner in multiple categories at the Academy Awards on March 15.

For cinema buffs who care about such things, that means the time has come: get over all those misgivings and hesitations, whatever reasons might be behind them, and see for yourself why it’s at the top of so many “Best Of” lists.

Adapted by Anderson from the 1990 Thomas Pynchon novel “Vineland,” “One Battle” is part action thriller, part political allegory, part jet-black satire, and – as the first feature film shot primarily in the “VistaVision” format since the early 1960s – all gloriously cinematic. It unspools a near-mythic saga of oppression, resistance, and family bonds, set in an authoritarian America of unspecified date, in which a former revolutionary (Leonardo DiCaprio) is attempting to raise his teenage daughter (Chase Infiniti) under the radar after her mother (Teyana Taylor) betrayed the movement and fled the country. Now living under a fake identity and consumed by paranoia and a weed habit, he has grown soft and unprepared when a corrupt military officer (Sean Penn) – who may be his daughter’s real biological father – tracks them down and apprehends her. Determined to rescue her, he reconnects with his old revolutionary network and enlists the aid of her karate teacher (Benicio Del Toro), embarking on a desperate rescue mission while her captor plots to erase all traces of his former “indiscretion” with her mother.

It’s a plot straight out of a mainstream action melodrama, top-heavy with opportunities for old-school action, sensationalistic violence, and epic car chases (all of which it delivers), but in the hands of Anderson – whose sensibilities always strike a provocative balance between introspection, nostalgia, and a sense of apt-but-irreverent destiny – it becomes much more intriguing than the generic tropes with which he invokes to cover his own absurdist leanings.

Indeed, it’s that absurdity which infuses “One Battle” with a bemusedly observational tone and emerges to distinguish it from the “action movie” format it uses to relay its narrative. From DiCaprio (whose performance highlights his subtle comedic gifts as much as his “serious” acting chops) as a bathrobe-clad underdog hero with shades of The Dude from the Coen Brothers’ “The Big Liebowski,” to the uncomfortably hilarious creepy secret society of financially elite white supremacists that lurks in the margins of the action, Anderson gives us plenty of satirical fodder to chuckle about, even if we cringe as we do it; like that masterpiece of too-close-to-home political comedy, Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 nuclear holocaust farce “Dr. Strangelove,” it offers us ridiculousness and buffoonery which rings so perfectly true in a terrifying reality that we can’t really laugh at it.

That, perhaps, is why Anderson’s film has had a hard time drawing viewers; though it’s based on a book from nearly four decades ago and it was conceived, written, and created well before our current political reality, the world it creates hits a little too close to home. It imagines a roughly contemporary America ruled by a draconian regime, where immigration enforcement, police, and the military all seem wrapped into one oppressive force, and where unapologetic racism dictates an entire ideology that works in the shadows to impose its twisted values on the world. When it was conceived and written, it must have felt like an exaggeration; now, watching the final product in 2026, it feels almost like an inevitability. Let’s face it, none of us wants to accept the reality of fascism imposing itself on our daily lives; a movie that forces us to confront it is, unfortunately, bound to feel like a downer. We get enough “doomscrolling” on social media; we can’t be faulted for not wanting more of it when we sit down to watch a movie.

In truth, however, “One Battle” is anything but a downer. Full of comedic flourish, it maintains a rigorous distance that makes it impossible to make snap judgments about its characters, and that makes all the difference – especially with characters like DiCaprio’s protective dad, whose behavior sometimes feels toxic from a certain point of view. And though it’s a movie which has no qualms about showing us terrifying things we would rather not see, it somehow comes off better in the end than it might have done by making everything feel safe.

“Safe” is something we are never allowed to feel in Anderson’s outlandish action adventure, even at an intellectual level; even if we can laugh at some of its over-the-top flourishes or find emotional (or ideological) satisfaction in the way things ultimately play out, we can’t walk away from it without feeling the dread that comes from recognizing the ugly truths behind its satirical absurdities. In the end, it’s all too real, too familiar, too dire for us not to be unsettled. After all, it’s only a movie, but the things it shows us are not far removed from the world outside our doors. Indeed, they’re getting closer every day.

Visually masterful, superbly performed, and flawlessly delivered by a cinematic master, it’s a movie that, like it or not, confronts us with the discomforting reality we face, and there’s nobody to save it from us but ourselves.

This year’s Oscar nominees feature very few openly queer actors or creatives, with KPop Demon Hunters, Come See Me in the Good Light, and Elio bringing some much-needed representation to the field.

KPop Demon Hunters, which quickly became a worldwide sensation after releasing on Netflix last June, was nominated for best animated feature film and best original song for Golden, the chart-topping hit co-written by openly queer songwriter Mark Sonnenblick. Come See Me in the Good Light, a film following the late Andrea Gibson and their wife, Megan Falley, was nominated in the best documentary feature category. Finally, Pixar’s Elio (co-directed by openly queer filmmaker Adrian Molina) was nominated for best animated feature film alongside Zootopia 2, Arco, and Little Amélie or the Character of Rain.

Ethan Hawke did manage to land a best actor nomination for his work in Richard Linklater’s Blue Moon, a biopic that follows a fatal night in Lorenz Hart’s life as he reckons with losing his creative partner, Richard Rodgers. Robert Kaplow was also nominated for best original screenplay for penning the script. Amy Madigan, as expected, was recognized in the best supporting actress category for her work in Weapons, bringing celebrated gay icon Aunt Gladys to the Oscar stage.

While Wicked: For Good was significantly underperforming throughout the season, with Cynthia Erivo missing key nominations and the film falling squarely out of the best picture race early on, most pundits expected the film to still receive some recognition in craft categories. But in perhaps the biggest shock of Oscar nomination morning, For Good received zero nominations — not even for costume design or production design, the two categories in which the first film won just last year. Clearly, there was Wicked fatigue across the board.

There was also reasonable hope that Eva Victor’s acclaimed directorial debut, Sorry, Baby, would land a best original screenplay nod, especially after Julia Roberts shouted out Victor during the recent Golden Globes (which aired the day before Oscar voting started). A24, the studio that distributed Sorry, Baby in the U.S., clearly prioritized campaigns for Marty Supreme (to much success) and Rose Byrne in If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, leaving Sorry, Baby the indie darling that couldn’t quite crack the Oscar race.

However, with the Film Independent Spirit Awards taking place on Feb. 15, queer films like Sorry, Baby, Peter Hujar’s Day, and Twinless will finally get their time to shine. Maybe these films were just underseen, or not given a big enough PR push, but regardless, it’s unfortunate that The Academy couldn’t make room for just one of these when Emilia Pérez managed 13 nominations last year.

Casting is everything when it comes to making a movie. There’s a certain alchemy that happens when an actor and character are perfectly matched, blurring the lines of identity so that they seem to become one and the same. In some cases, the movie itself feels to us as if it could not exist without that person, that performance.

“Marty Supreme” is just such a movie. Whatever else can be said about Josh Safdie’s wild ride of a sports comedy – now in theaters and already racking up awards – it has accomplished exactly that rare magic, because the title character might very well be the role that Timothée Chalamet was born to play.

Loosely based on real-life table tennis pro Marty Reisman, who published his memoir “The Money Player” in 1974, this Marty (whose real surname is Mauser) is a first-generation American, a son of Jewish immigrant parents in post-WWII New York who works as a shoe salesman at his uncle’s store on the Lower East Side while building his reputation as a competitive table tennis player in his time off. Cocky, charismatic, and driven by dreams of championship, everything else in his life  – including his childhood friend Rachel (Odessa A’zion), who is pregnant with his baby despite being married to someone else – takes a back seat as he attempts to make them come true, hustling every step of the way.

Inevitably, his determination to win leads him to cross a few ethical lines as he goes – such as stealing money for travel expenses, seducing a retired movie star (Gwyneth Paltrow), wooing her CEO husband (Kevin O’Leary) to sponsor him, and running afoul of the neighborhood mob boss (veteran filmmaker Abel Ferrara) – and a chain of consequences piles at his heels, threatening to undermine his success before it even has a chance to happen.

Filmed in 35mm and drenched in the visual style of the gritty-but-gorgeous “New Hollywood” cinema that Safdie – making his solo directorial debut without the collaboration of his brother Benny – so clearly seeks to evoke, “Marty Supreme” calls up unavoidable connections to the films of that era with its focus on an anti-hero protagonist trying to beat the system at its own game, as well as a kind of cynical amorality that somehow comes across more like a countercultural call-to-arms than a nihilistic social commentary. It’s a movie that feels much more challenging in the mid-2020s than it might have four or so decades ago, building its narrative around an ego-driven character who triggers all our contemporary progressive disdain; self-centered, reckless, and single-mindedly committed to attaining his own goals without regard for the collateral damage he inflicts on others in the process, he might easily – and perhaps  justifiably – be branded as a classic example of the toxic male narcissist.

Yet to see him this way feels simplistic and reductive, a snap value judgment that ignores the context of time and place while invoking the kind of ethical purity that can easily blind us to the nuances of human behavior. After all, a flawed character is always much more authentic than a perfect one, and Marty Mauser is definitely flawed.

Yet in Chalamet’s hands, those flaws become the heart of a story that emphasizes a will to transcend the boundaries imposed by the circumstantial influences of class, ethnicity, and socially mandated hierarchy. His Marty is a person forging an escape path in a world that expects him to “know his place,” who is keenly aware of the anti-semitism and cultural conventions that keep him locked into a life of limited possibilities and who is willing to do whatever it takes to break free of them; and though he might draw our disapproval for the choices he makes, particularly with regard to his relationship with Rachel, he grows as he goes, navigating a character arc that is less interested in redemption for past sins than it is in finding the integrity to do better the next time – and frankly, that’s something that very few toxic male narcissists ever do.

In truth, it’s not surprising that Chalamet nails the part, considering that it’s the culmination of a project that began in 2018, when Safdie gave him Reisman’s book and suggested collaborating on a movie based on the story of his rise to success. The actor began training in table tennis, and continued to master it over the years, even bringing the necessary equipment to location shoots for movies like “Dune” so that he could perfect his skills – but physical skill aside, he always had what he needed to embody Marty. This is a character who knows what he’s got and is not ashamed to use it, who has the drive to succeed, the will to excel, and the confidence to be unapologetically himself while finding joy in the exercise of his talents, despite how he might be judged by those who see only ego. If any actor could be said to reflect those qualities, it’s Timothée Chalamet.

Other members of the cast also score deep impressions, especially A’zion, whose Rachel avoids tropes of victimhood to achieve her own unconventional character arc. Paltrow gives a remarkably vulnerable turn as the aging starlet who willingly allows Marty into her orbit despite the worldliness that tells her exactly what she’s getting into, while O’Leary embodies the kind of smug corporate venality that instantly positions him as the avatar for everything Marty is trying to escape. Queer fan-fave icons Fran Drescher and Sandra Bernhard also make small-but-memorable appearances, and real-life deaf table tennis player Koto Kawaguchi strikes a memorable chord as the Japanese champion who becomes Marty’s de facto rival.

As for Safdie’s direction, it’s hard to find anything to criticize in his film’s visually stylish, sumptuously photographed (by Darius Khondji), and tightly paced delivery, which makes its two-and-a-half hour runtime fly by without a moment of drag.

It must be said that the screenplay – co-written by Safdie with Ronald Bronstein – leans heavily into an approach in which much of the narrative hinges on implausible coincidences, ironic twists, and a general sense of orchestrated chaos that makes things occasionally feel a little too neat; but let’s face it, life is like that sometimes, so it’s easy to overlook.

What might be more problematic, for some audiences, is Marty’s often insufferable – and occasionally downright ugly behavior. Yes, Chalamet infuses it all with humanizing authenticity, and the story is ultimately more about the character’s emotional evolution than it is about his winning at ping-pong, but it’s impossible not to read a subtext of American Exceptionalism into his winner-takes-all climb to victory – which is why “Marty Supreme,” for all its critical acclaim, is the subject of much heated debate and outrage on social media right now.

As for us, we’re not condoning anything Marty does or says as he hustles his way to the winner’s circle. All we’re saying is that Timothée Chalamet has become an even better actor since he captured our attention (and a lot of gay hearts) in “Call Me By Your Name.”

And that’s saying a lot, because he was pretty great, even then.

For every person who adores Shakespeare, there are probably a dozen more who wonder why.

We get it; his writings, composed in a past when the predominant worldview was built around beliefs and ideologies that now feel as antiquated as the blend of poetry and prose in which he wrote them, can easily feel tied to social mores that are in direct opposition to our own, often reflecting the classist, sexist, and racist patriarchal dogma that continues to plague our world today. Why, then, should we still be so enthralled with him?

The answer to that question might be more eloquently expressed by Chloe Zhao’s “Hamnet” – now in wide release and already a winner in this year’s barely begun awards season – than through any explanation we could offer.

Adapted from the novel by Maggie O’Farrell (who co-wrote the screenplay with Zhao), it focuses its narrative on the relationship between Will Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) and his wife Agnes Hathaway (Jessie Buckley), who meet when the future playwright – working to pay off a debt for his abusive father – is still just a tutor helping the children of well-to-do families learn Latin. Enamored from afar at first sight, he woos his way into her life, and, convincing both of their families to approve the match (after she becomes pregnant with their first child), becomes her husband. More children follow – including Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe), a “surprise” twin boy to their second daughter – but, recognizing Will’s passion for writing and his frustration at being unable to follow it, Agnes encourages him to travel to London in order to immerse himself in his ambitions.

As the years go by, Agnes – aided by her mother-in-law (Emily Watson) and guided by the nature-centric pagan wisdom of her own deceased mother – raises the children while her husband, miles away, builds a successful career as the city’s most popular playwright. But when an outbreak of bubonic plague results in the death of 11-year-old Hamnet in Will’s absence, an emotional wedge is driven between them – especially when Agnes receives word that her husband’s latest play, titled “Hamlet,” considered an interchangeable equivalent to the name of their dead son, is about to debut on the London stage.

There is nothing, save the bare details of circumstance around the Shakespeare family, that can be called factual about the narrative told in “Hamnet.” Records of Shakespeare’s private life are sparse and short on context, largely limited to civic notations of fact – birth, marriage, and death announcements, legal documents, and other general records – that leave plenty of blank spaces in which to speculate about the personal nuance that such mundane details might imply. What is known is that the Shakespeares lost their son, probably to the plague, and that “Hamlet” – a play dominated by expressions of grief and existential musings about life and death – was written over the course of the next five years. Shakespearean scholars have filled in the blanks, and it’s hard to argue with their assumptions about the influence young Hamnet’s tragic death likely had over the creation of his father’s masterwork. What human being would not be haunted by such an event, and how could it not impact every aspect of their experience in the world forever after?

In their screenplay, O’Farrell and Zhao imagine an Agnes Shakespeare (most records refer to her as “Anne” but her father’s will uses the name “Agnes”) who stands apart from the conventions of her town, born of a “wild woman” in the woods and raised in ancient traditions of mysticism and nature magic before being adopted into her well-off family, who presents a worthy match and an intellectual equal for the brilliantly passionate creator responsible for some of Western Civilization’s most iconic tales. They imagine a courtship that would have defied the customs of the time and a relationship that feels almost modern, grounded in a love and mutual respect that’s a far cry from most popular notions of what a 16th-century marriage might look like. More than that, they imagine that the devastating loss of a child – even in a time when the mortality rate for children was high – might create a rift between two parents who can only process their grief alone. And despite the fact that almost none of what they present to us can be seen, at best, as anything other than informed speculation, it all feels devastatingly true.

That’s the quality that “Hamnet” shares with the ever-popular Will Shakespeare; though it takes us into a past that feels almost as alien to us as if it took place upon a different planet, it evokes a connection to the simple experience of being human, which cuts through the differences in context. Just as the kings, heroes, and fools of Shakespeare’s plays express and embody the same emotional experiences that shape our own mundane modern lives, the film’s portrayal of these two real-life people torn apart by personal tragedy speaks directly to our own shared sense of loss – and it does so with an eloquence that, like Shakespeare’s, emerges from the story to make it feel as palpable as if their grief was our own.

Yes, the writing and direction – each bringing a powerfully feminine “voice” to the story – are key to the emotional impact of “Hamnet,” but it’s the performances of its stars that carry it to us. Mescal, once more proving himself a master at embodying the kind of heartfelt, masculine tenderness that’s capable of melting our hearts, gives us an accessible Shakespeare, driven perhaps by a spark of genius yet deeply grounded in a tangible humanity that underscores the “everyman” sensibility that informs the man’s plays. But it’s Buckley’s movie, by a wide margin, and her bold, fierce, and deeply affecting performance gives voice to a powerful grief, a cry against the injustice and cruelty of what we fumblingly call “fate” that resonates deep within us and carries our own grief, over losses we’ve had and losses we know are yet to come, along with her on the journey to catharsis.

That’s the word – “catharsis” – that defines why Shakespeare (and by extension, “Hamnet”) still holds such power over the imagination of our human race all these centuries later. The circumstantial details of his stories, wrapped up in ancient ideologies that still haunt our cultural imagination, fall away in the face of the raw expression of humanity to which his characters give voice. When Hamlet asks “to be or not to be?,” he is not an old-world Danish Prince contemplating revenge against a traitor who murdered his father; he is Shakespeare himself, pondering the essential mystery of life and death, and he is us, too.

Likewise, the Agnes Shakespeare of “Hamnet” (masterfully enacted by Buckley) embodies all our own sorrows – past and future, real and imagined – and connects them to the well of human emotion from which we all must drink; it’s more powerful than we expect, and more cleansing than we imagine, and it makes Zhao’s exquisitely devastating movie into a touchstone for the ages.

We can’t presume to speak for Shakespeare, but we are pretty sure he would be pleased.

The 83rd annual Golden Globes awards are set for Sunday (CBS, 8 p.m. EST). One of the many bright spots this awards season is “Hedda,” a unique LGBTQ version of the classic Henrik Ibsen story, “Hedda Gabler,” starring powerhouses Nina Hoss, Tessa Thompson and Imogen Poots. A modern reinterpretation of a timeless story, the film and its cast have already received several nominations this awards season, including a Globes nod for Best Actress for Thompson.

Writer/director Nia DaCosta was fascinated by Ibsen’s play and the enigmatic character of the deeply complex Hedda, who in the original, is stuck in a marriage she doesn’t want, and still is drawn to her former lover, Eilert. 

But in DaCosta’s adaptation, there’s a fundamental difference: Eilert is being played by Hoss, and is now named Eileen.

“That name change adds this element of queerness to the story as well,” said DaCosta at a recent Golden Globes press event. “And although some people read the original play as Hedda being queer, which I find interesting, which I didn’t necessarily…it was a side effect in my movie that everyone was queer once I changed Eilert to a woman.”

She added: “But it still, for me, stayed true to the original because I was staying true to all the themes and the feelings and the sort of muckiness that I love so much about the original work.”

Thompson, who is bisexual, enjoyed playing this new version of Hedda, noting that the queer love storyline gave the film “a whole lot of knockoff effects.”

“But I think more than that, I think fundamentally something that it does is give Hedda a real foil. Another woman who’s in the world who’s making very different choices. And I think this is a film that wants to explore that piece more than Ibsen’s.”

DaCosta making it a queer story “made that kind of jump off the page and get under my skin in a way that felt really immediate,” Thompson acknowledged.

“It wants to explore sort of pathways to personhood and gaining sort of agency over one’s life. In the original piece, you have Hedda saying, ‘for once, I want to be in control of a man’s destiny,’” said Thompson.

“And I think in our piece, you see a woman struggling with trying to be in control of her own. And I thought that sort of mind, what is in the original material, but made it just, for me, make sense as a modern woman now.” 

It is because of Hedda’s jealousy and envy of Eileen and her new girlfriend (Poots) that we see the character make impulsive moves.

“I think to a modern sensibility, the idea of a woman being quite jealous of another woman and acting out on that is really something that there’s not a lot of patience or grace for that in the world that we live in now,” said Thompson.

“Which I appreciate. But I do think there is something really generative. What I discovered with playing Hedda is, if it’s not left unchecked, there’s something very generative about feelings like envy and jealousy, because they point us in the direction of self. They help us understand the kind of lives that we want to live.”

Hoss actually played Hedda on stage in Berlin for several years previously.

“When I read the script, I was so surprised and mesmerized by what this decision did that there’s an Eileen instead of an Ejlert Lovborg,” said Hoss. “I was so drawn to this woman immediately.”

The deep love that is still there between Hedda and Eileen was immediately evident, as soon as the characters meet onscreen.

“If she is able to have this emotion with Eileen’s eyes, I think she isn’t yet because she doesn’t want to be vulnerable,” said Hoss. “So she doesn’t allow herself to feel that because then she could get hurt. And that’s something Eileen never got through to. So that’s the deep sadness within Eileen that she couldn’t make her feel the love, but at least these two when they meet, you feel like, ‘Oh my God, it’s not yet done with those two.’’’

Onscreen and offscreen, Thompson and Hoss loved working with each other.

“She did such great, strong choices…I looked at her transforming, which was somewhat mesmerizing, and she was really dangerous,” Hoss enthused. “It’s like when she was Hedda, I was a little bit like, but on the other hand, of course, fascinated. And that’s the thing that these humans have that are slightly dangerous. They’re also very fascinating.”

Hoss said that’s what drew Eileen to Hedda.  

“I think both women want to change each other, but actually how they are is what attracts them to each other. And they’re very complimentary in that sense. So they would make up a great couple, I would believe. But the way they are right now, they’re just not good for each other. So in a way, that’s what we were talking about. I think we thought, ‘well, the background story must have been something like a chaotic, wonderful, just exploring for the first time, being in love, being out of society, doing something slightly dangerous, hidden, and then not so hidden because they would enter the Bohemian world where it was kind of okay to be queer and to celebrate yourself and to explore it.’”

But up to a certain point, because Eileen started working and was really after, ‘This is what I want to do. I want to publish, I want to become someone in the academic world,’” noted Hoss.

Poots has had her hands full playing Eileen’s love interest as she also starred in the complicated drama, “The Chronology of Water” (based on the memoir by Lydia Yuknavitch and directed by queer actress Kristen Stewart).

“Because the character in ‘Hedda’ is the only person in that triptych of women who’s acting on her impulses, despite the fact she’s incredibly, seemingly fragile, she’s the only one who has the ability to move through cowardice,” Poots acknowledged. “And that’s an interesting thing.”

---

After her last-minute addition in the Zack Snyder film Army of the Dead, audiences everywhere thirsted over lovable actress/comedian Tig Notaro like a cold bottle of Gatorade in the Arizona desert. Tig is now teaming up with the famed director yet again to bring the people exactly what they want:

A Hot Lesbian Action Movie!

But what exactly does a “Hot Lesbian Action” movie entail?

You’re in luck, my friend. I am proficient in all things Action Movie (I saw Taken once) and all things Lesbian (I made two female Sims kiss on multiple occasions)! So here, for your convenience, is a cohesive and authoritative list of what 11 things this movie is GUARANTEED to include.

---

1. A Finger Pulling the Trigger Will Not Be the Only “Finger Bang”

If there’s no wuh-luh-wuh (WLW) intimacy, then what did I buy my AMC A‑List for?!

2. There Will Be Multiple Straps

One for her gun.

And one in her backpack for later. (wink!)

You can’t have that cool slow‑motion moment where our hero reaches toward her armpits only to pull out two guns unless she’s wearing a strap—to hold the gun.

PERVERT.

And because lesbians, our lesbian action hero should also wear a strap—to hold her dildo.

PERVERT (again).

3. This Is a Zack Snyder Film. So, Much Like Lesbian Sex, It Will Be Like, Four Hours Long

And like lesbian boinking, this movie will reach multiple climaxes. It is an action movie, after all. 

The Breakdown:

Hour One: Foreplay. We meet the characters, learn their deal, and ease into the story.

Hour Two: Carnal knowledge. Action-packed chaos—chases, gunfire, sweaty lesbians.

Hour Three: Someone finishes. We take a little break (from the story, duh). Maybe we explore a B‑plot. Maybe the characters hydrate? Idk

Hour Four: The climax. Conflicts resolve. You order DoorDash as a treat.

4. The Soundtrack Will Include Taylor Dayne

Any Tig fan knows the Taylor Dayne bit. Naturally, a Dayne song will appear…preferably at a moment where it does NOT fit tonally.

5. A Nod to the Church

The working title is Deviants, which is a totally the first nod to “the church.”

Deviant: “Killers, deviants, and those whose actions are beyond most human comprehension.”

The runner‑up title was Jenny Schecter, but they gave it a “hard pass” for some reason.

6. The Villain Will Be Her Toxic Ex

The true villain in every lesbian story.

You know her:

She shows up at Dyke Day near your tent

She’s constantly angling to be interviewed at FUTCH

And yes, she kept the cat

Of course she’s the villain here too.

7. Chaotic Lesbian TikTokers Will Appear

I’m not naming names because there are actually too many to name (and also because I do not know any of their names; I’m bad with names), but they will be there, adding drama to every side quest on our hero’s journey.

9. The MacGuffin Will Be a Euphemism for Vagina

For those who don’t know:

A MacGuffin is a plot device that motivates characters but is often unimportant in itself.

Example: the briefcase in Pulp Fiction (I know, I know, No Tarantino, sorry).

In this film, the MacGuffin is a euphemism for vagina, so they will:

chase it

protect it

worship it

get it safely across the finish line

And to be clear: in this movie, the MacGuffin is VERY important.

10. The Whole, “Is She Flirting or Is She Just Being Nice?” thing will be woven into a chase scene

One character is in a high‑speed car chase.

The other is ordering coffee and making meaningful eye contact with the barista.

The car swerves.

The barista smiles. 

The engine revs.

The cafe banter escalates.

The car clears a tough corner.

“Got any plans with your girlfriend tonight?”

“I don’t have a girlfriend.”

Yes

“But I do have a boyfriend.”

NOOOOOOO!

Both scenes crash and burn simultaneously.

Minor scrapes. Emotional bruises. We live to chase another day.

11. Nail Clippers Will Save the Day

Probably to cut a bomb wire or something.

---

Final Thoughts

No matter how this Hot Lesbian Action Movie shakes out, one thing is certain:

I’ll be there opening weekend—popcorn in hand, wearing my “I ♥ ️ Lesbians” T‑shirt.

And I hope you will too.

Follow Allison Reese on IG