What do you think?
Rate this book
New Queer Cinema: The Director's Cut
B. Ruby Rich designated a brand new genre, the New Queer Cinema (NQC), in her groundbreaking article in the Village Voice in 1992. This movement in film and video was intensely political and aesthetically innovative, made possible by the debut of the camcorder, and driven initially by outrage over the unchecked spread of AIDS. The genre has grown to include an entire generation of queer artists, filmmakers, and activists. As a critic, curator, journalist, and scholar, Rich has been inextricably linked to the New Queer Cinema from its inception. This volume presents her new thoughts on the topic, as well as bringing together the best of her writing on the NQC. She follows this cinematic movement from its origins in the mid-1980s all the way to the present in essays and articles directed at a range of audiences, from readers of academic journals to popular glossies and weekly newspapers. She presents her insights into such NQC pioneers as Derek Jarman and Isaac Julien and investigates such celebrated films as Go Fish, Brokeback Mountain, Itty Bitty Titty Committee, and Milk. In addition to exploring less-known films and international cinemas (including Latin American and French films and videos), she documents the more recent incarnations of the NQC on screen, on the web, and in art galleries.
360 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
33 people are currently reading
748 people want to read
About the author
B. Ruby Rich
13 books19 followersB. Ruby Rich is Professor of Film and Digital Media at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She has written for scores of publications, from Signs, GLQ, Film Quarterly, and Cinema Journal to the New York Times, the Village Voice, the Nation, and the Guardian (UK). She has served as juror and curator for the Sundance and Toronto International Film Festivals and for major festivals in Germany, Mexico, Australia, and Cuba. The recipient of awards from Yale University, the Society for Cinema and Media Studies, and Frameline, Rich is the author of Chick Flicks: Theories and Memories of the Feminist Film Movement, also published by Duke University Press.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
April 14, 2013
Wonderful analysis and collective reflection on a number of GLBTQ films in a collection of essays by B. Ruby Rich. This was a particularly eye opening read for me because, even with being passionate about film in multiple dimensions, I wasn't aware of the extensive history of queer film, nor did I know about the movement known as NQC, or New Queer Cinema as the author terms it. There are many facets to this particular guide, discussing the chronological history of the movement as well as social and economic impacts of many films, roles in shaping the history and influence of gay and lesbian portrayals in film, and how that paved the way for other films in the present day to come to terms. I also really appreciated the multicultural focus this narrative had with respect to portrayals of NQC, from domestic portrayals from POC GLBTQ film portrayals to those abroad, particularly with an entire section dedicated to Queer film in Latin America. The end of the narrative provides a full filmography listing for reference as well as a bibliography for future reference and research. I would definitely recommend this narrative as it's perhaps the most comprehensively written collection of essays I've perused on the subject.
Overall score: 4/5
Note: I received this as an ARC from NetGalley, from the publisher Duke University Press.
Overall score: 4/5
Note: I received this as an ARC from NetGalley, from the publisher Duke University Press.
April 9, 2021
I learned a considerable amount about gay and lesbian filmmaking in this book (names, dates, the way politics interacted with twentieth-century gay and lesbian filmmaking, etc.). However, I absolutely hated reading it.
I found B. Ruby Rich's voice as a writer to be insufferable. I disagreed with her on a lot of things, in terms of what makes a "good queer film", but that was almost to be expected. One prominent issue with her was her essentialist, reductive view of the word "queer". She constantly referred to "queer" films and "queer" people. Queer, as we know it to be since it has originally been used, has meant anyone outside cisgender and/or heterosexual parameters (and even beyond, into "unconventional" cishets, such as cishet polyamorous people... "queer" was historically seen as a statement as well as an identity). To Rich, "queer" clearly meant, at the time of writing, cisgender gays and lesbians.
Rich's idea that "trans is the new queer" infuriated me. Trans people were always at the forefront of the queer movement, and indeed the gay liberation movement before it... while there may not have been many prominent trans voices in film during the 90s and 00s, they were still very much part of the queer activist world and social sphere, which is something Rich discusses often. Indeed, they were often rejected from this sphere by cis gays and lesbians, which is, in effect, what Rich does in her writing here. This even extends to the book's conclusion, in which Rich takes it upon herself, at the will and desire of [checks notes] no trans people at all, to define certain films in the 00s and early 10s as 'New Trans Cinema'. Her judgement also seems to conclude that transgender studies and trans art are squarely outside the realm of "queer". They are allegedly something "postqueer". This not only reveals that she thinks "queer" as a movement is effectively over, but also that she does not see and embrace the inextricable connection queerness has to transness.
Onto Rich's choice to completely ignore any concept of bisexuality. Rich's analyses of films in which characters could ambiguously be interpreted as either gay or bisexual (e.g. Brokeback) leave no room for questioning. They place these characters squarely in the monosexual "gay" box every time. The only time she mentions a film addressing "the issue of bisexuality" (bisexuality, as we all know, is not an "issue"), is in an article that addresses a film which deals with a lesbian's anxiety about her girlfriend leaving her for a man. This only continues to propagate the idea that bisexuals are inherently unfaithful and disingenuous in their claims to be same-gender attracted. Further, Rich does not acknowledge any bisexual filmmakers or indeed bisexual actors in her writing. More than half the time, she doesn't even mention bisexuals in the definition of "queer".
The book also smacks of complacency in areas such as addressing potential misogyny in gay male filmmaking. For example, her justification for condemning accusations of misogynistic portrayals of women in Jarman's 'Edward II' is essentially as follows: Jarman was her friend, so there's no way he could have been misogynistic. Also, she equates the fact that Tilda Swinton contributed considerably to the development of her character in the film with the idea that the portrayal of said character could not possibly be misogynistic... as if women cannot participate in (internalised) misogyny themselves. Now, whether this film's portrayal of women is misogynistic or not is another matter - Rich's response to such an inquiry shuts down the very idea of it, as if it's not even worth discussing when a friend whose work she enjoys is involved.
The book fails to adequately address the relationship that race bears to the NQC movement; while intermissions about films made by people of colour, like 'The Watermelon Woman', feature in the book, the book fails to structurally and consistently consider the fact that the NCQ, like many film movements in the US, is predominantly white, and a movement that marginalises and largely ignores PoC voices.
I also found Rich's register, along with her ostensible self-righteousness and pompousness, difficult to reconcile as I read the book. I got through it in an endeavour to find inspiration for a uni essay, and came up disappointingly short.
I found B. Ruby Rich's voice as a writer to be insufferable. I disagreed with her on a lot of things, in terms of what makes a "good queer film", but that was almost to be expected. One prominent issue with her was her essentialist, reductive view of the word "queer". She constantly referred to "queer" films and "queer" people. Queer, as we know it to be since it has originally been used, has meant anyone outside cisgender and/or heterosexual parameters (and even beyond, into "unconventional" cishets, such as cishet polyamorous people... "queer" was historically seen as a statement as well as an identity). To Rich, "queer" clearly meant, at the time of writing, cisgender gays and lesbians.
Rich's idea that "trans is the new queer" infuriated me. Trans people were always at the forefront of the queer movement, and indeed the gay liberation movement before it... while there may not have been many prominent trans voices in film during the 90s and 00s, they were still very much part of the queer activist world and social sphere, which is something Rich discusses often. Indeed, they were often rejected from this sphere by cis gays and lesbians, which is, in effect, what Rich does in her writing here. This even extends to the book's conclusion, in which Rich takes it upon herself, at the will and desire of [checks notes] no trans people at all, to define certain films in the 00s and early 10s as 'New Trans Cinema'. Her judgement also seems to conclude that transgender studies and trans art are squarely outside the realm of "queer". They are allegedly something "postqueer". This not only reveals that she thinks "queer" as a movement is effectively over, but also that she does not see and embrace the inextricable connection queerness has to transness.
Onto Rich's choice to completely ignore any concept of bisexuality. Rich's analyses of films in which characters could ambiguously be interpreted as either gay or bisexual (e.g. Brokeback) leave no room for questioning. They place these characters squarely in the monosexual "gay" box every time. The only time she mentions a film addressing "the issue of bisexuality" (bisexuality, as we all know, is not an "issue"), is in an article that addresses a film which deals with a lesbian's anxiety about her girlfriend leaving her for a man. This only continues to propagate the idea that bisexuals are inherently unfaithful and disingenuous in their claims to be same-gender attracted. Further, Rich does not acknowledge any bisexual filmmakers or indeed bisexual actors in her writing. More than half the time, she doesn't even mention bisexuals in the definition of "queer".
The book also smacks of complacency in areas such as addressing potential misogyny in gay male filmmaking. For example, her justification for condemning accusations of misogynistic portrayals of women in Jarman's 'Edward II' is essentially as follows: Jarman was her friend, so there's no way he could have been misogynistic. Also, she equates the fact that Tilda Swinton contributed considerably to the development of her character in the film with the idea that the portrayal of said character could not possibly be misogynistic... as if women cannot participate in (internalised) misogyny themselves. Now, whether this film's portrayal of women is misogynistic or not is another matter - Rich's response to such an inquiry shuts down the very idea of it, as if it's not even worth discussing when a friend whose work she enjoys is involved.
The book fails to adequately address the relationship that race bears to the NQC movement; while intermissions about films made by people of colour, like 'The Watermelon Woman', feature in the book, the book fails to structurally and consistently consider the fact that the NCQ, like many film movements in the US, is predominantly white, and a movement that marginalises and largely ignores PoC voices.
I also found Rich's register, along with her ostensible self-righteousness and pompousness, difficult to reconcile as I read the book. I got through it in an endeavour to find inspiration for a uni essay, and came up disappointingly short.
April 26, 2017
It was all subjective opinions, not much to really be learned from the book
March 6, 2022
“i sympathize deeply with those searching for the outlawry missing from our lives” brilliant BRILLIANT! rich does not compromise or lose her voice at any point once again BRILLIANT!!!
January 13, 2013
I received a copy free through Goodreads First Reads.
This was a fascinating and insightful look into a genre of the cinema I was not overly familiar with. I know the more mainstream works but it was great learning about the indie side of things. I am going to pass this along top a friend whop really loves the genre! Fantastic book for a film fan!!
This was a fascinating and insightful look into a genre of the cinema I was not overly familiar with. I know the more mainstream works but it was great learning about the indie side of things. I am going to pass this along top a friend whop really loves the genre! Fantastic book for a film fan!!
March 9, 2018
Very enjoyable and informative read about this era of Queer Film! Also somewhat nostalgic for those of us who were around during the time and this film movement. Especially fantastic, the chapter titled "Collision, Catastrophe, Celebration: The Relationship between Gay and Lesbian Film Festivals, and their Publics". As a filmmaker on the LGBT Festival circuit and the Director of a regional LGBT festival, the look at the way queer audiences can want something categorically different from festival programmers is needed and truthful.
September 3, 2024
The endorsement of this book by camp legend John Waters prompted me to pick this up
Insightful and informative analysis. Great entry into queer media theory, though I wish more of the essays were like “Got Milk” and the essays about French queer cinema their references to the larger cultural context surrounding these films and their success (or failure) in the box office and film festivals.
Insightful and informative analysis. Great entry into queer media theory, though I wish more of the essays were like “Got Milk” and the essays about French queer cinema their references to the larger cultural context surrounding these films and their success (or failure) in the box office and film festivals.
September 19, 2019
Engaging and educational.
August 11, 2023
this is so good finally uni reading that doesnt make me want to claw my eyes out
February 5, 2016
Compilation of intelligent, thought-provoking essays by film essayiist and critic which place the new queer cinema movement in cultural/historical context. One wold definitedly search out the films outlined. Includes a interesting section about queering new Latin American Cinema.
August 4, 2018
oh man, what a ride.
i have always loved queer cinema, well, more specifically, ever since i have started my interest in films and cinema. i kept watching and watching, but then i got interested in more than the films' plots: it's the depth and background of this film genre. and this is THE book that can satisfy my need for more advanced, complex and informative source about queer cinema. i have got everything i wanted, plus the things i never knew that wanted to read. surprisingly, the book offered more than i expected, so i was really overwhelmed.
in this book we got to know about every aspects of the new queer cinema movement: first its origins, the older films, pioneers, the festivals and audiences that helped shape the formation of the movement; second: the movement itself with its films, filmmakers, festivals and of course, politic events; third: its proportion, its impact, and the revolutions it brought about; last but not least: the future of it. every topics was written with clear and useful information. you don't even have to read it from first page to last, just browse through the contents page and pick the topic you are interested in (although reading in chronological order is a more superior way to have better and deeper understanding).
i personally loved the parts when b. ruby rich went into details about the major filmmakers of the movement, and their films, like the writing about gregg araki's doom and dark filmography; or apichatpong weerasethakul's tropical malady. or the writing about the era of brokeback mountain, its film-making process, its breakthrough, its impact on people. and of course, the article on milk, a highly informative and rich piece of writing about everything that surrounds the film: the real-life story about its hero, the precedent films and books, the film making process itself (believe me, it was indeed interesting and inspiring) and the political events surrounding it, and even the writer's personal reception was included in, which made it a complex, layered, moving, and of great importance piece of writing about one of the most important film of the genre itself.
the conclusion of the book was really nice, and it stirred some thing in me, maybe passion, maybe hope. i believe in the immortality of the movement (lol, long live queer cinema!). maybe, in response to the greatness of the movement itself, i hope that, in the future, there will be another edition of this book, with extended contents, because good films never stop coming-out, we will never stop at this point, never. that's what i firmly believe, with an unflinching hope.
i have always loved queer cinema, well, more specifically, ever since i have started my interest in films and cinema. i kept watching and watching, but then i got interested in more than the films' plots: it's the depth and background of this film genre. and this is THE book that can satisfy my need for more advanced, complex and informative source about queer cinema. i have got everything i wanted, plus the things i never knew that wanted to read. surprisingly, the book offered more than i expected, so i was really overwhelmed.
in this book we got to know about every aspects of the new queer cinema movement: first its origins, the older films, pioneers, the festivals and audiences that helped shape the formation of the movement; second: the movement itself with its films, filmmakers, festivals and of course, politic events; third: its proportion, its impact, and the revolutions it brought about; last but not least: the future of it. every topics was written with clear and useful information. you don't even have to read it from first page to last, just browse through the contents page and pick the topic you are interested in (although reading in chronological order is a more superior way to have better and deeper understanding).
i personally loved the parts when b. ruby rich went into details about the major filmmakers of the movement, and their films, like the writing about gregg araki's doom and dark filmography; or apichatpong weerasethakul's tropical malady. or the writing about the era of brokeback mountain, its film-making process, its breakthrough, its impact on people. and of course, the article on milk, a highly informative and rich piece of writing about everything that surrounds the film: the real-life story about its hero, the precedent films and books, the film making process itself (believe me, it was indeed interesting and inspiring) and the political events surrounding it, and even the writer's personal reception was included in, which made it a complex, layered, moving, and of great importance piece of writing about one of the most important film of the genre itself.
the conclusion of the book was really nice, and it stirred some thing in me, maybe passion, maybe hope. i believe in the immortality of the movement (lol, long live queer cinema!). maybe, in response to the greatness of the movement itself, i hope that, in the future, there will be another edition of this book, with extended contents, because good films never stop coming-out, we will never stop at this point, never. that's what i firmly believe, with an unflinching hope.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews