#beautiful thing

[zanephillips]

Beautiful Thing (1996) dir. Hettie Macdonald

[haveyouseenthismovie-poll]

[celluloidrainbow]

BEAUTIFUL THING (1996) dir. Hettie Macdonald Set during a long, hot summer on the Thamesmead Estate in Southeast London, three teenagers edge towards adulthood. Jamie is in love with his classmate, and while his homosexuality remains concealed, his introverted nature and dislike of football are reason enough for his classmates to bully him. Ste is the aforementioned classmate, who lives with his abusive brother and stepfather nextdoor to Jamie. Leah is also a neighbour; expelled from school, she takes a variety of drugs, constantly listens and sings along to her mother's records, and finds herself at odds with Sandra, Jamie's mother. (link in title)

[stripedstarsblueflags]

goodbye to a world

reading between the lines of the various goodbyes and dismissals to logan sargeant

Pt. 2: Alex on socials

full series

oh, alex albon. you beautiful soul.

it goes without saying that the social media presence of drivers is so important that it’s monitored and orchestrated by an entire group of people– but a team like williams? they’ve got that shit under lock and key. i’ve said this before and i’ll say it again: the shitstorm williams has been in puts an unbelievable amount of pressure on their drivers not just to perform well but to pick up the pieces. they’re at the forefront of the “let’s look forward! let’s keep pushing” optimism campaign that all backmarker teams have to put together for the sake of professionalism. logan basically doesn’t have a social media presence, and you see more of him on the official f1 grid photography dumps than williams’ own account. alex’s posts are more frequent, but the content itself might as well be autogenerated. in conferences, they’re both reserved, careful what they say, always swinging back inelegantly towards the same one-liner: “we’ll look at the data, reset, hope to come back stronger in [next race]”. and unlike teams like mclaren, mercedes, ferrari– the two teammates definitely don’t make posts to or about each other.

alex posts this three hours after the official august 27 announcement:

alex…

this is going to have to be a list again, isn’t it? one post, a few photos, and he’s already said and conveyed so much more than the williams “statements” ever even tried.

first of all, 12:20 exactly? that’s been queued. obviously. we also know that alex found out about logan being axed mere hours before the decision, and i for one think that was absolutely deliberate. they wanted to get logan out– like, physically out of their vicinity– as quickly and as discretely as possible. so are they going to give alex, who’s famously kind and compassionate and talks too much and pays more on-camera attention to logan than practically anyone else in that team… they’re going to give him a heads up? unlikely.

so is there a chance that this post was composed for him before they even told him? that’s actually almost a certainty, but the most important detail to mention is that caption. let’s go sentence-by-sentence.

“i know firsthand how brutal this sport can be…”

wow. okay. i said sentence-by-sentence but i can’t even get past this because… BRUTAL. what a word. this is clearly a reference to alex’s own replacement by red bull. 2019. not that long ago, but considering alex’s f1 presence has already been solidified as “adhd cat dad who can also outperform the SHIT out of a backmarker car” it’s not something that’s called back too often, that he had a shot in a front running team. it wasn’t really a fall from grace, was it? because even in a williams alex has continued to prove himself and put that car way further ahead than it deserves to be. so it was painful but not in a way that, like, max’s silverstone crash is still painful to some people. it’s pretty distant in the f1 public consciousness from what i can tell.

but alex is making a point to throw back to it. not in detail, not heavily, because he’s not making it about himself. the only allusion to the actual event is the word “firsthand”. high is the right way to go about it because saying anything about “back when i” would be going too far, reshifting the spotlight in the wrong direction. but he’s asking us all:

remember when i was a kid and i was trying to build myself up and they tossed me aside like i was nothing? remember when i got discarded by a team that’s burned through so many second drivers already, and left thinking my only f1 legacy would be “that disappointment”? remember how much that hurt?

brutal. what a word. because that’s what red bull is, that’s what they do. famously. but it’s definitely not the word you’d apply to a team that’s supposed to be The Underdogs and A Family and A Lovely Sense of Familiarity and Support what fucking ever.

so alex gets away with this by the way he’s planned out the last half of that phrase: “how brutal this sport can be…” because he says ‘this sport’, not ‘this team’ or ‘james vowles’. so he’s flipping a two-sided coin here:

side one, on the surface. what williams want to see from him and want to believe. the sport is brutal. it is what it is. life’s not fair. that’s just how it goes. no blame but the harsh reality of the sport itself.

side two, between the lines. not too far deep between the lines, too, all you have to do to see this side is not have a compulsive, ashamed, desperate desire to see anything else. this is brutal. what’s happening to logan is brutal. what’s happening is painful and humiliating and you’re leaving him in the dust like he was always disposable, like you never wanted him, like you can’t wait to forget about him and i know because that’s what happened to me.

he’s saying this right to their faces. he’s saying it to everyone.

“…it’s tough to see Logan leave the team mid-season.”

i have a feeling this is the part that was prewritten just because of the word tough. “this is, of course, incredibly tough on” et cetera, we know where that understatement came from. the emphasis is on the fact that the disruption, the replacement is happening literally during the season, which is Such A Mess For Everyone, not the fact that the disruption is logan losing his entire career in disgrace (because he’s already said that part). so this single sentence toes the line so gracefully it’s almost an art.

“You gave it your all brother and it’s been a pleasure being teammates with you.”

this is really interesting specifically for the fact that 1) shortly after james manages to say the same thing as a put-down and 2) he goes on to contradict himself. i’m going to pick up later on the “you gave it your all” part because we will definitely revisit that, but the second half is nice too. it’s not focusing on logan’s performance as a williams driver, or as an f1 driver. it’s about logan– and, to an extent, himself– in a light people don’t tend to see either of them in: as a teammate. when you’ve got a team like mclaren or ferrari where the teammates are so closely matched that their race craft, cooperation and competition is a direct talking point in their racing, we talk about that a lot more often. but alex and logan can spend a race more than half a grid apart from each other, and as a williams driver that’s been true for alex this whole time. so we don’t think of which of them is or isn’t a better teammate because they’re barely driving the same race, and they’re not being treated like they’re in the same team. but even bringing that up in a post is good to see, just another way to give logan an additional title. the williams’ failure, the underperformer, the disappointment, the backmarker, and– oh yeah, alex albon’s teammate. love to see it.

“I know whatever you do next, you’ll be awesome.”

WOAH. okay, talk about shifting the spotlight. what’s been the williams 2024 story so far? i mean, if you were going to use a sentence to describe “how we got here” and “where we’re going”? we would probably see something like: logan’s failure in 24 brought in carlos sainz for 25. the narrative from james vowles in particular is: whatever we do next with carlos sainz, we’ll be awesome. the williams narrative since jv took over has basically been “uhhh yeah we’re nowhere now but WE’RE GONNA BE!! UH! SOMEWHERE! EVENTUALLY!” all about the future.

logan, in contrast… his whole narrative since joining f1 and immediately tumbling has been “he had a chance for a future but it’s gone now.”

not. to. alex. albon. in the wake of this announcement everybody is fucking reeling, and in the context of williams people are buzzing all around colapinto and how he’s been rocketed into the limelight for the better or worse, and all the distraught logan fans are either throwing up or screaming to the heavens, “WHAT NOW??” logan is being pushed aside the same way you’d push some clutter off a desk. he’s evaporating into thin air, or at least that’s what williams are trying to make him do.

three hours in, and alex albon is there to remind us: logan’s story is not over. he’s acknowledging that logan’s future is wide open, empty, undecided and unprepared (“whatever you do next”) but he’s ACKNOWLEDGING THE FUTURE. and the change in tone from third-person “seeing Logan” to second-person “you’ll be awesome”… once again, it’s not about him. it’s not about alex being a nice guy and a nice teammate and showing the world how nice he is by taking pity on this other person who’s leaving. he’s personally telling logan and by extension us: you’ll be awesome. doesn’t matter where you go, what you do, you have the potential to be awesome and so you will be. it’s not even “have fun” “enjoy where you’re going” “i hope you do well” it’s <<you will>>.

“Just you fucking wait,” Alex is saying. “You wait and watch. He’ll show you.”

it’s not just a lovely goodbye, it’s a ferocious goodbye. it’s a statement. it’s a confident send off, maybe the only genuine vote of confidence he’s ever gotten from williams.

and we love to see it.

[yougonnahateit]

Beautiful thing (1996)

[the-breath-in-air]

9 Queer Movies from the 1990s You May Not Have Heard Of

It's New Years, which means it's time for lists. And while everyone else is doing 'top X of 2023,' I've decided to list 9 queer movies from the 1990s. Why? Because I wanna. Plus, in discussions of representation, I often see folks talk about it with a heavy focus on mainstream 'Hollywood' produced movies, which leads folks to talk as though progress has been linear. As if, in the past there was no/'bad' queer representation and now there is 'good' representation. But of course it's not that simple. Plenty of amazing queer movies were produced in the past decades...they were just indie movies and thus difficult to find in a world prior to Netflix and Mubi and whatnot. But now we have streaming services, so allow me to share some of my favorites from the before times (specifically the 1990s).

Without further ado....here is an alphabetical list of queer movies from the 90s you may not have heard of (especially if you're under 30).

--

Beautiful Thing (1996) (dir. Hettie Macdonald)

Before there was Heartstopper, there was Beautiful Thing. It's a story about two gay teens, one sporty and one very much not sporty...and about how they deal with pressure to come out and pressure to hide who they are. It's a very sweet coming of age story, really. However, unlike Heartstopper, in Beautiful Thing the economic class of the protagonists plays an important role in the story (the characters all live on a counsel estate in London). The characters stories are nearly as much about them being working class as it is about the two main character being gay. It's one of the first movies I ever saw about gay teens, and I loved it. I still get a wistful smile every time I hear Mama Cass Elliot's "Make Your Own Kind of Music." (cw for parental abuse)

--

Edward II (1991) (dir. Derek Jarman)

The real Edward II was King of England for 20 years in the 14th century. At the end of the 16th century, Christopher Marlowe wrote a play about Edward's reign and eventual downfall. In 1991, Derek Jarman streamlined Marlowe's play and brought all the homosexual subtext between Edward and Gaveston way out front. In the film, Edward II is in prison and reflects on the events which have led him to that point. The trouble begins when Edward takes the throne and brings his exiled lover, Gaveston, back to England. All around them the rest of the aristocracy (including Edward's wife) conspire to bring Gaveston down. The movie itself is anachronistic (set in 1991), with minimal sets and costume, and staged a lot like a play. A lot of the dialogue is right out of Marlowe's play, though there are some changes to the story (notably at the end). It's honestly my favorite Derek Jarman movie, and frankly one of my favorite movies, full stop. (cw for blood, animal corpses, violent death)

--

Fire (1996) (dir. Deepa Mehta)

Fire is the first film in the Elements Trilogy written and directed by Deepa Mehta. Each film in the trilogy is about different characters in India, with the connection between the three being thematic rather than plot or character. Fire is about two Indian women, Radha and Sita, who form a bond through their struggles living within a traditional "joint-family" (i.e. a family where all extended family live together and all money and resources are shared). The women in this family have very little agency and this film explores how the two main characters navigate through it. The men in this film are also repressed by the social structure in which they live, and this film spends some time looking at that as well. It's a film about queer desire between women living under patriarchy. (All the movies on this list are available on streaming services in the US, except Fire. However, I was able to find it uploaded to a random YouTube channel) (cw for someone catching on fire, brief domestic violence (a slap), and non-consensual kissing)

--

Happy Together (1997) (dir. Wong Kar-wai)

In Happy Together, two men from Hong Kong travel to Argentina and eventually get stuck there when they run out of money and are unable to return home. The relationship between these two men is very tumultuous, with a lot of arguing and breaking up and getting back together. It's one of the first movies I saw in which queer folks have, just, regular ol' relationship drama - exasperated by the regular ol' struggles of life. (i cant remember if there are any content warnings i should put here; it's been a few years since i've seen it)

--

Lilies (1996) (dir. John Greyson)

Lilies is a Canadian film in which a prisoner requests a bishop come to the prison to hear the prisoner's last confession. It quickly becomes clear, however, that the prisoners have something else in mind when they begin staging a play. It turns out the bishop and prisoner knew each other as teens, and the play is about the events in their lives that led up to the prisoner being put on trial. So you end up with a play-within-a-play (or rather a play-within-a-movie). The film weaves between the production staged in the prison and the memory of the events in a really fluid way. All the prisoners portray their characters in the 'memory' sections, which lends itself to some really great moments in the prison sections. And at the heart of this memory/story is a queer love story. (cw for parental abuse, murder, fire, and suicide)

--

The Living End (1992) (dir. Gregg Araki)

This is a film about two young gay men who are diagnosed HIV positive. Unlike more mainstream films about HIV that came before (and after), The Living End wears its anger and pain on its sleeve. The entire world is entirely fucked up, and so these two men turn to a nihilistic outlook. The acting is just okay and some of the dialog is a bit ridiculous...but what draws me to rewatch this movie is the way that it conveys the emotion of the time. It's a ball of rage manifest on film. (cw for attempted suicide, rape, murder)

--

Love is the Devil (1998) (dir. John Maybury)

One of the problems with the average biopic is that it attempts to portray a person's entire life in a single movie. Thankfully, Love is the Devil doesn't have that problem; it focuses on only 8 years of Francis Bacon's life - the time he spent with a man named George Dyer. By this point, Bacon was already an extremely famous artist (and, at least in the film, a bit of an asshole). Bacon meets Dyer as Dyer attempts to burgle Bacon's studio - and thus begins an extremely dysfunctional love affair. If you want to see Derek Jacobi and Daniel Craig portray this dysfunctional relationship, then this is the movie for you. Also, if you want to see a biopic that lets the subject of the film be portrayed as a shitty person, this is a film for you. (cw for bdsm, drug use, untreated mental illness, and suicide)

--

Orlando (1992) (dir. Sally Potter)

From right out the gate, Orlando announces its queer themes by having Quentin Crisp portray Queen Elizabeth I, and Tilda Swinton portray Orlando (a man). From the first scenes it becomes clear that gender is going to be a main theme in the movie. Orlando is a young man who will never grow old and never die. He begins life in the 1500s, during Queen Elizabeth's reign, and we see him (and later, her) throughout the centuries between then and 'present' day (1992). The film is broken into thematic chunks (poetry, politics, society, etc). In each of these chunks we see Orlando's life as it reflects the social norms of the time (especially gender norms).

--

Swoon (1992) (dir. Tom Kalin)

Like Rope (1948) and Compulsion (1959), Swoon is a film about the Leopold and Loeb murder. Unlike the earlier films, Swoon makes the gay relationship between Leopold and Loeb explicit. Their relationship in the film is fairly uneven, with Loeb being characterized as more of an explicit manipulator. Leopold, on the other hand, is driven more by wanting to please Leob. Complicating this dynamic is the way that Leopold is the one more interested in their sexual relationship. Is Loeb exchanging sex for help with his criminal activities? Or is Leopold committing crimes in order to elicit sex from Loeb? Or both...something a bit more complicated than either/or? The film, especially the latter half, eschews and lampoons the sensationalism of the reporting of the crime from the time. (cw for murder, blood (in black and white), and animal corpses)

--

Honorable mention goes to more well-known movies I didn't put on this list, such as: But I'm a Cheerleader, Velvet Goldmine, Bound, Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, The Birdcage, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, My Own Private Idaho, Bent...there are actually a whole lot of queer movies from the 1990s, now that I think about it.

[yourlovelyspace]

So you can feel special 💝

[wen-kexing-apologist]

Bengiyo's Queer Cinema Syllabus

For those who are not aware, I have decided to run the gauntlet of @bengiyo’s Queer Cinema Syllabus and have officially started Unit 2: Race, Disability, and Class. The films in Unit 2 are: The Way He Looks (2014), Being 17 (2016), Naz and Maalik (2015), The Obituary of Tunde Johnson (2019), Margarita With a Straw (2014), My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), Brother to Brother (2004), and Beautiful Thing (1996)

Today I will be writing about

Naz and Maalik (2015) dir. Jay Dockendorf

[Available on Amazon, Run Time- 1:24, Language: English]

Summary: Two closeted Muslim teens hawk goods across Brooklyn and struggle to come clean about their sexuality, as their secretive behavior leads them unknowingly into the cross-hairs of the War on Terror.

Cast: Kerwin Johnson Jr. as Naz Curtiss Cook Jr. as Maalik

__

Another great film down, and plenty more to go. I very deeply appreciate the authenticity of this film in the way it highlights religion and the shittiness of cops. 

I like that there is a kind of war against the older ways and the newer ways between Naz and Maaling. Naz appears to be much more religious than Maalik, he wears a kufi, he gives alms, he tries to pray five times a day. Not to say that Maalik isn’t religious, but he isn’t as hung up on what is and is not haram, he’s more comfortable in his sexuality, more willing to engage in PDA, but he’s less idealistic about the world. 

I love the hustle and grind we see from these boys, but even more so I love when they spend time alone together. I love how much time we get to see them goofing off, touching shoulders, flirting, racing, just having fun. I love how much time this film dedicates to showing how Naz and Maalik’s relationship works. How it could work. I love that in New York City they have so many shots dedicated to just the two of them, to the peace and quiet and light that follows them when they are together.

I love even more that they fight, that they are messy and complicated, and how much of that is driven not by themselves, but everyone else around them. This film takes place post 9/11, during the War on Terror. For those who are not aware, the War on Terror is/was a global counterterrorism military campaign following 9/11. And like I said, this film does some pretty decent realism, especially when it comes to the portrayal of the FBI agents that spend all day tailing Naz and Maalik because they have been #profiled. 

One of the main conflicts kicks off when an undercover cop tries to sell Naz and Maalik a gun. Maalik, trying to be funny, haggles for the weapon but does not end up buying it. But engaging in a joke like that is enough for this FBI agent to decide they should be followed. At which point, these two FBI agents essentially end up acting as voyeurs to Naz and Maalik’s secret love life. 

The FBI waits until each boy is alone and isolated to question them, and Maalik is completely honest while Naz, scared about his parents finding out about his sexuality, lies about where he had been the night before. Once again, I loved the portrayal of this, of two eighteen-year olds trying to navigate the system that was built to punish them. Not because I’m thrilled they are being harassed, but because I am appreciative of not being subject to propaganda about law enforcement and how “good” they are. 

I liked seeing the dichotomy between Naz and Maalik’s handling of the FBI agent, versus an older Black man handling questioning. How he’s trying his best not to give her any information, how he cites his right to not say anything to her without an attorney present. And in response he is treated with suspicion, the FBI agent tries pressing and pushing for more information, because that’s what cops do. 

And I remain unsurprised when the FBI agent pulls a gun on Naz when he reaches in to his bag. I think there are statements being made when the FBI agent is pissed at Naz and Maalik for “wasting her time” and that the boys are compelled to apologize for the inconvenience, despite the fact they were literally just existing as Black muslims and the FBI agent decided that not buying a gun was enough of a reason to tail them all day.

But it is those outside pressures, the concern that they will be outed, that they will be disowned, that they will lose everything that starts driving a wedge between Naz and Maalik. That Naz’s sister finds out and Naz is scared she’ll tell their parents. Those all start when the FBI starts questioning them, though there are multiple other forces at play.

Now. I think I wrote up a post after I watched Love of Siam, and how fucking furious I was that they ended that film on a separation. But that does not mean I hate separation narratives in queer cinema (I hated the one in LoS because I felt tricked). But Naz and Maalik separating at the end makes sense given their circumstances. There is no winning here. Naz is too kind to slaughter a chicken, Maalik feels compelled to show that he can do it, and Maalik ends up wounded and the chicken ends up dead without either of them laying a hand on it. There are repercussions here, a car accident, an injured person that could have been spared by just killing the chicken. I like that despite the fact that Naz and Maalik do have multiple fights in the film, it is not a fight that breaks them up. 

They both knew this was an inevitability, there aren’t hard feelings about it. It’s sad for both of them, but it happens almost casually. TI did find the ending of the movie very interesting. Because they chose to end it before Naz arrives home. Naz gets on the subway, sad about his separation with Maalik, scared about what is waiting for him at home, and he is stopped by the very same cop that tried to sell him a gun the other day. He is ticketed for riding his bike in the subway, and one of the last lines Naz has in the movie is something like “don’t I know you from somewhere?” 

Because no matter what, he’ll just never catch a fucking break. 

As an aside, I love how frequently homeless people are included in this film and how they are never regarded as scary or terrifying. One guy is mostly quiet and he either stares or sleeps. Another man is loud, rambunctious, and fucking funny. Naz and Maalik talk to a homeless woman, talk to some boys begging for money for medical treatment. I just love when homeless people are humanized, and I am glad that Naz and Maalik spends time focusing their lens on the people society often refuses to look at.

By/For/About Queers

Naz and Maalik is loosely based on an interview director Jay Dockendorf did with a closeted Muslim man that he sublet a room from. Dockendorf used this man’s life story as a jumping off point for his film. And it certainly feels like a film that is made for queer people, the way that it is structured. So ultimately, I think this is a gay trifecta.

Favorite Moment

My favorite moment is near the end of the film. Naz and Maalik have just made out and Naz has rejected the offer to take things further. Naz and Maalik lay in bed together, in just their boxers, and they read each other these shitty little poems that are attached to beanie babies that Naz acquired earlier in the film. I just love gay boys and their plushies, I’m a simple person. And once again considering that Ben created this syllabus to be a wind up to BLs, I think the plushie moment is worth noting because boys and their plushies is a recurring theme in a number of BLs. Teh and Oh have matching monster plushies in I Told Sunset About You. Bai Lang’s entire apartment is covered in plushies in My Tooth Your Love. Chinzilla keeps a plushie of a chinchilla on an alter in the music room in My School President. etc. etc. 

And I love plushies every time because I love seeing moments of softness portrayed on screen.

Favorite Line

“Barack Obama*. It’s crazy. It makes white men smell like black men, so white women will like black men more.”

*fake name of a scented oil

I mean…come on. It’s perfect.

Score

8.5/10

I think the story was pretty good, and there are these incredible bright spots of powerful acting. But the director allowed space for a lot of improv, which in some capacities I think is good. However, it does often result in awkward line deliveries, that tend to take me out of the story because the acting fluctuates so much between brilliant and smooth, to conscious and stilted.

[bragascreenshot]

[rightintheghoulies]

[filmjunky-99]

b e a u t i f u l t h i n g, 1996 🎬 dir. hettie macdonald

[kakusboyfriend]

Looking thru ygo cards bc I'm very pokemon minded. I ❤️ this one

[f-yeahbendaniels]

My Top Five Favorite Ben Daniels Characters (Roles in His 30s): 3. Tony - Beautiful Thing (1996).

[not-xpr-art]

Beautiful Thing - digital collage ~

(featuring fragments from a bunch of my queer themed arts from over the years!)

(06/2023)

Part of my 2023 Pride month art project where I celebrate some of my fav queer films!

[olli-online]

Tameka Empson as Leah Russel

— Beautiful Thing (1996) dir. Hettie Macdonald