Queerness in the Ultra-Mainstream

When I watched L.I.E., I was mesmerised. Upon finishing it, I felt as though I had been plopped into a visceral limbo—a true disorientation. It was a film that made me forget my own existence, almost as if I was on the precipice of becoming something else entirely. While experiencing L.I.E., there was no doubt that I was being transported—taken somewhere. It also launched me into the world of gritty ’90s films like Mysterious Skin with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bully starring Brad Renfro. Engulfed in this cyclone of cinema, I began to notice patterns. These films often depict intense acts of violence and the limits of human brutality—but through a distanced, almost ambivalent lens. That seems to be the essence of this well-kept secret of a genre: they wash over you without acknowledging your existence; they move through you. You are merely a vessel that witnesses them.

It had been a while since I was truly touched by a queer film. This makes sense—movies like L.I.E. belong to a specific pocket of queer cinema from the late ’90s to early 2000s. Their universes are typically callous and indifferent toward the lives of their characters, their physical colouring is indistinct and pale, and they paint a nuanced, complex portrait of the queer psyche. But films like L.I.E. seem to be disappearing. Today, queerness in film has to be as palatable as possible. Instead, Love, Simon, with its offbeat product placement, dullness, and tragic comedic timing, has wiped out movies like L.I.E.. Due to ever-expanding media capitalism—where counterculture is re-manufactured into commodity—authentic queer media is being exploited in the ultra-mainstream.

Take, for example, the way “queer (adjacent) culture” is now being co-opted by figures like Harry Styles. Officially “unlabeled” or… whatever, Styles has leaned into queerness as an aesthetic, but his attempts to engage with it often reveal a lack of depth. While promoting his latest film, he made an absurd claim about wanting to depict “tender” gay sex on screen, as though queerness has previously only been represented by two men “just going at it.” His wording alone—“two guys going at it”—carries a subtle prejudice, a fundamental misunderstanding of the queerness he’s supposedly embracing. But beyond that, it’s all just a bit too calculated: from performatively kissing men at award shows to draping himself in rainbow flags at concerts, the whole thing feels like a strategic branding decision. If he were queer, he’d just say it. So why the performance?

Despite queer counterculture being trendy, actually being queer isn’t. And then there’s Love, Simon—which grossed $66.3 million and, for a time, defined mainstream gay media. Its bizarre, corporate creepiness is encapsulated in the scene where Simon, mid-coming-out, hands his sister a cooking mixer and murmurs, trance-like, “It’s a Cuisinart.” The whole film is obsessed with making Simon relatable to a straight audience—his defining trait is that he’s just like everyone else. “I drink way too much coffee and gorge myself on carbs,” he says, as though gayness itself must be neutralised into something digestible. Love, Simon isn’t interested in queerness—it’s interested in erasing it for marketability.

When queer films do get made today, they have to check particular boxes. The ones that are white, vaguely Wes Anderson-y, and, of course, feature Timothée Chalamet, are deemed acceptable. Call Me By Your Name tells a well-crafted story, but a rich, profoundly white one—and ironically, it turned Chalamet into a straight sex symbol. Every time a major queer film is cast, there seems to be a shortage of actual queer actors. The issue isn’t just “Is Harry Styles queerbaiting?” or “Is this movie genuine or capitalist propaganda?”—it’s how far will this go? Will there ever be real queer reclamation in the mainstream, or is queerness fundamentally incompatible with it?

So is queer cinema being boiled down into something vague and indefinable? Is it slowly being replaced with hollow, soulless replicas? It remains to be seen

The truth is, it had been a while since I was touched by a queer film. This makes sense as a movie like L.I.E is an artefact only to be retrieved from the repertoire of queer films from the late 90s to the early 2000s. In these films the constructed universes are typically callous and indifferent toward the lives of its characters, the physical coloring of the films are indistinct and pale, and overall, a nuanced and complex portrait of the queer psyche is being painted. But, alas, It seems that films such as L.I.E, are losing their right to exist. This is because in today’s world of film, being queer has to be as palatable as possible. Instead, Love, Simon, with its off-beat interjections of product placement, dullness, and tragic comedic timing, is wiping films like L.I.E off the face of the Earth. Due to ever expanding media capitalism; a nightmare in which counter-culture is being re-manufactured into commodity, authentic queer media is being exploited in the ultra-mainstream. As an example, the “queer (adjacent) culture” of today is now being taken over by the likes of Harry Styles. Now, I know he is officially “unlabeled” or…whatever, but whilst doing press for his newest film, Styles literally said this: “So much of gay sex in films is two guys going at it – (and) it removes the tenderness from it” now paraphrasing here, “I want to be able to show that gay sex can be tender too.” It’s a bizarre moment to watch, the newly crowned “king of pop”, a completely manufactured star, who’s previous identity was serenading adolescent girls, undergoes a shift in management and is now the world’s “queer” poster boy. His lingo definitely doesn’t sound super “up-to-date” on queer issues – I mean, I don’t understand why “two guys going at it” is an illegitimate expression of affection. To my chagrin, as the whole thing is incredibly dystopian, I think it’s fair to assume that his whole ambiguous sexuality thing is constructed. (My estimate would be that his management clocked the “Larry Stylinson” conspiracy and thought that embracing the outlandish conspiracy would generate some cash). There is just more than just hints of implicit prejudice in his palatable cocktail party philosophy, his simpering, archaic use of language would be an example. He’s also trying too hard to appear queer – from performatively kissing men on the mouth at award shows to wrapping himself up in a rainbow flag in nearly all of his shows. I think if the man was queer, he would just say it. So why the hell is he doing this???

Despite queer counter-culture being cool, fashionable, and trendy, actually being gay, is not what’s in style(s). And back to the dismal Love Simon… this film grossed 66.3 million dollars, by the way, and defined gay media in the mainstream for a good amount of time. The horrendous feeling this film leaves you with is probably due it featuring terrifying moments that remind you that you’re living in a late-stage capitalist nightmare; I am referring to the scene where Simon is about to come out, but randomly hands a cooking mixer to his sister and in a trance like state says, – “It’s a Cuisineart“. The film reminds the audience, in the Love, Simon’s trademark creepiness that he’s “just like you”… over and over again. It also constructs a really rough, try-hard, pastiche of Gen Z kids, “I’m just like you”, Simon says (again), ” I drink way too much coffee and gorge myself on carbs”. Simon is a gay white male who lacks any defining character traits and it’s impossible to tell that he’s gay, it is a film that is desperate to please its straight audience by creating a gay character that is as generic as possible. It’s quite sad considering that its sole attempt is trying to humanise human beings, but that’s the direction we are heading in when portraying gay people. Subservient. Diluted. Deluded. Barely resembling actual humans…These days, mainstream filmmaking is finally allowing some major motion gay films, but the protocol appears to be erasing all the gay “stuff” – sanitising it so it can be watchable for its heterosexual audiences. So is queer media even made for queer people anymore? I don’t speak for all queer films, there are some wonderful ones made in the last ten years (Tangerine, The Favourite) But, in the ultra-mainstream – it is just getting depressing. In the last decade, they typically exist on a spectrum of being completely vacuous or just perverse and inaccurate.

If there is going to be a decent queer film made, it has to check particular boxes – the ones that are white and Wes Anderson-y (and of course feature Timothee Chalamet) are by all accounts, acceptable. Call Me By Your Name, for example, tells a pretty authentic and well-crafted story, but a rich and profoundly white one. Ironically, this “queer” film gave rise to Timothee Chalamet in a global capacity, making him a straight sex symbol. It’s frustrating. It seems that every time there is a casting for a queer major motion production, there is a shortage of gay actors. My point is, its not a question of “Is Harry Styles queer-baiting?”, or, “Is this this questionable film a queer love story or capitalist propaganda?” It’s how far will all of this go? Will there be any legitimate queer reclamation in the space of the mainstream? Is the mainstream synonymous with hegemony and therefore access is impossible for queer people? It remains to be seen.

So is queer media and queer cinema is being boiled down to a vague nebulousness – something completely indefinable? Is it slowly becoming extinct and being replaced with hollow, soulless replicas?