Earlier this week, I reviewed a new movie called Queens of Drama. It’s the first feature from Alexis Langlois, a nonbinary French filmmaker who made a name for themself with campy over the top shorts filled with dykes and trans women. I loved Queens of Drama, but in 2021 I watched one of their shorts with my eyes rolled so far back in my head they could see my imperfect brain.
The Demons of Dorothy is a horror short about a cis dyke filmmaker who is rejected from the industry at-large due to her love of queer comedies featuring women with big boobs. Her nemesis is a transfeminine Cannes darling who makes something akin to the arthouse mainstream. At the time, I was annoyed with this skewed portrait of the industry. When have horny perverts been rejected by the film industry? When has a transfeminine filmmaker ever been celebrated at Cannes? I gave it three-stars on Letterboxd where I compared Langlois to Sam Levinson — two filmmakers who at the time identified as cis men using the identities of others to air out industry grievances.
Except my comparison to Levinson’s Malcom and Marie turned out to be incorrect. Langlois is not cis and not a man. But, more importantly, this critique would still be misguided had this not turned out to be the case. After all, the only reason to bring up Sam Levinson’s identity is because his writing feels false. So is the issue identity? Or is the issue bad writing?
I’ve been publishing my thoughts on film and television since 2018 and it’s inevitable in those six and a half years my perspectives have shifted. It’s also inevitable for any critic that bias impacts reaction. While I do think Langlois’ feature is sharper in its look at the entertainment industry than their short, the reason The Demons of Dorothy annoyed me so much is because of frustrations that had nothing to do with Langlois.
I’ve tried over the years to mitigate my biases by being honest about my perspective. Leslie Jamison is the essayist who inspired me to write nonfiction and I’ve always admired her belief that including the author adds objectivity, because it acknowledges subjectivity. Across my 700+ articles for Autostraddle, I’ve often included myself in the work — whether in a detailed personal essay or just in a brief mention — as a way to provide context for my perspective. I’m fallible and I’ve always wanted people to read criticism because it’s thought-provoking rather than as an ascertain of a right or wrong opinion.
But there are still old articles that make me cringe like that since-deleted Letterboxd post. My second movie review for Autostraddle was for JT LeRoy, a movie that is not very good but that I criticized for its casting of Kristen Stewart in a nonbinary role. I don’t stand by that criticism at all. Gender is far too complicated to suggest a dyke like Stewart can’t play someone nonbinary like Savannah Knoop. Overall, I’ve had to learn that ideas such as “trans roles must be played by trans actors” are better as guidelines rather than strict rules. Art and identity will always have exceptions.
Not all of my cringe-inducing opinions were negative. I also think I was way too generous to Ryan Murphy for about 18 months. In my defense, those months coincided with the peak of the pandemic. But that’s exactly what I’m talking about! Critics bring their life experiences to our work whether that’s frustration with the number of trans filmmakers at Cannes or the need for comfort during a pandemic resulting in unearned generosity.
Sometimes, the regret isn’t due to a changed opinion but a tone. Being mean is rewarded online and I do think there’s a place for it. But in the case of something like Ammonite, reading reviews from people who connected with the film made me rethink my dismissal. Even if the film didn’t and doesn’t work for me, I’m not sure what was helped by my snark. (Except that it got a bunch of cis white lesbians to call me a tranny in my DMs.) This is still something I struggle with because I do think harsh critique is important. And I think cleverness is important! I just want to make sure my targets are deserving — like Whitney Cummings in this Drag Race recap.
I may have deleted my initial thoughts on The Demons of Dorothy from Letterboxd, but my published writing on here and elsewhere remains. That’s part of the job. Even as my thoughts change over the years, they remain in the archive. What’s the expression? Opinions are like assholes — post them and they’ll be online forever.
Loved this so much!
the Drag Race Whitney Cummings read remains iconic and I reckon will stand the test of time — in fact, it should probably be in a museum. but in all seriousness, loved alllll this!! harsh criticism is important but so is evolving criticism
i do often think about sitting in my kitchen doing a jigsaw puzzle and watching Ryan Murphy’s Hollywood, having not touched another human being for six straight weeks or talked to anybody in person aside from grocery store employees and thinking it was the most delightful thing i had ever seen and wondering if maybe i was wrong about that but you know what i think i do ultimately stand by it and also the girl who watched it