I did not like Longlegs. Autostraddle team writer Stef Rubino did. I love when this happens — when I have a different experience of a movie from someone whose opinions I respect. I knew I wanted to talk to Stef about the movie, but when we both realized the way people were discussing this particularly film felt off, we decided to make that discussion more formal.

The big question among queer people seems to be: Is Longlegs homophobic or transphobic? One thing Stef and I agree on is that’s the wrong question.

Drew:: So we’re here today to talk about the movie Longlegs. Specifically to talk about how some queer people have said the movie is homophobic or transphobic and others have said it definitely is not. And we feel like that’s not really the right question.

Stef: Yes, I think that question is very boring.

Drew: But before we get into that, we had pretty different experiences of the movie just as a movie. So I’d love to start there. How did you feel about Longlegs as a film?

Stef: Ok, so, I didn’t think it was the best horror movie ever, but that’s mostly because I’m not sure it was meant to be a horror film. I know the marketing and Oz Perkins himself have been touting it as the scariest movie ever made, but I feel like it’s all very tongue-in-cheek. A close friend of mine and I saw it together and we both walked out thinking it was a dark comedy

I think the performances were great, but I found it interesting how the characters weren’t really three dimensional. They were just kind of flat, which I think helped the humor and absurdity of it all quite a bit, but it’s hard to tell if that was intentional or not.

What did you think?

Drew: Right, I think either it’s a terribly written mash-up of better work or it’s explicitly commenting on that other work. I’m inclined to think it’s the latter. As Samantha Allen points out in this piece, Oz Perkins of all people is aware of the horror genre broadly and, specifically, the horror genre in how it relates to queer-coded killers. Personally, I just don’t think the tonal and thematic balancing act really works. I like the idea of sort of blowing up Silence of the Lambs and its copy cats (along with various Satan horror) to tell a story about family secrecy and complicity both within family and within law enforcement. But do I think Longlegs achieves that? My feeling was no…

Stef: Yes, he is clearly very aware of the horror genre broadly, especially in regards to trends within the genre. If we take Longlegs piece by piece, we can see all of the elements that have been popular in horror over the last 25+ years: the police procedural, a connection to the afterlife/Satan, possession, and, shit, even haunted dolls/objects. It’s a mash up, for sure, and one that isn’t very smooth, but I’m not sure it’s supposed to be. I think we’re supposed to find it funny. Not necessarily “funny haha” but funny as in, we’re living in an absurd time where people are driven to the most absurd behaviors.

Drew: Yeah even though it didn’t work for me, I think that’s the most interesting framing to look at and discuss the film.

Stef: As far as achieving that message about family secrecy specifically, he doesn’t nail it as much as I’d like. The threads are there and if you’re critically literate enough (which I try to be optimistic about how many of us are), you can put that together. I don’t think that part is a rousing success, but again, it makes me wonder if that’s what we’re really supposed to be getting from the film. Or if we’re supposed to feel like it’s a critique on us and our consumption of these kinds of stories (which I’m growing more inclined to believe).

Drew: That’s interesting. What aspects of it make you feel like it’s meant to be a critique of our consumption of these stories?

Stef: All of those elements being thrown together in this way that isn’t totally graceful, plus the marketing of the film and Oz Perkins’ press tour overall, and the fact that the ending was so predictable…it feels as if there’s something going on in terms of getting it thrown in our faces and teasing us a little for our willingness to engage/entertain these kinds of stories.

Drew: That makes sense to me. It also does feel pointed that Longlegs dies two thirds of the way through and the deeper evil is Satan (who we do not see) and therefore is more of an aura. Also that the main FBI agent is a psychic but doesn’t realize the major culprit of her case is her own mother. Like I’m sorry that has to be on purpose. It’s too silly otherwise.

Stef: Hahaha, exactly! I kind of felt like Perkins was playing with us before but in those moments, specifically, I was thinking “Oh he’s totally fucking with us.” But I never thought it was for nothing. It is very clunky, but I’m under the impression that he’s trying to turn the “family trauma” horror film on its head a little bit. That’s become such HOT currency in the horror world lately, and I think he’s using it to his advantage and making a joke of it. Maybe that’s just my personal bias…but I feel and understand an approach to tragedy that highlights the absolute ridiculousness of tragedy rather than just the sadness of it. So many things in our lives are devastating but many moments within that devastation are also incredibly funny.

Drew: It’s interesting that his personal family tragedy is intrinsically tied to the history of queer-coded killers on-screen. If there’s any cishet man who I’m fine to see play with that trope it’s him.

Stef: Absolutely. He understands both the tragic nature of that and the irony of it much more intimately than almost anyone.

Drew: And to get to that… I do think it’s undeniable that Longlegs is queer-coded based on comments by Nicolas Cage and the production team as well as what’s on-screen. I’ve seen people, in response to accusations of homophobia, insist that Longlegs isn’t queer-coded. And I find that frustrating. Because he can be queer-coded and the movie can still be good or not offensive or whatever. (Also it’s a spectrum — art is not good or not good, offensive or not offensive.) I think there’s so much room to play with this trope. I mean, I made a short film where Buffalo Bill and Norman Bates fuck (coming soon!) so obviously I think that. And while I wish more trans women were getting the opportunity to play with the trope on this large a scale, again, if any cishet man has my blessing it’s Perkins.

A male character who is a killer and has a grimy lair and has a lot of plastic surgery and speaks in a high-pitched voice and has long hair and is meant to be androgynous is inherently queer-coded and in conversation with Silence of the Lambs especially, and this trope more broadly. I’m kind of confused about that being a debate at all. To me, it feels born from people feeling like to admit that is to inherently criticize the movie.

Both Psycho and Silence of the Lambs go out of their way to note their killers aren’t really transvestites or transsexuals. And yet they’re the two most famous and influential examples of the trope. Longlegs doesn’t need to wave a pride flag and take a shot of estrogen to be queer-coded.

Stef: Hahaha, ok but now I’m imagining him doing so and laughing.

Drew: Longlegs is the new Babadook you heard it here first!

Stef: It’s so funny because before I saw those comments from Cage and Perkins, in my mind, Longlegs was definitely “effeminate” but I didn’t immediately go towards androgynous or queer-coded. That came after I started seeing everyone talking about it online, then it hit me like “Oh yeah, there’s that connection between these other horror villains.” Watching the movie, though, I was just thinking ok, he’s this guy who grew up in the hey-day of glam rock and then got wrapped up in Satanic shit, probably because of the crowd he was running with or whatever at the time.

Drew: But isn’t glam rock inherently queer-coded? Maybe that broad a statement will get me in trouble.

But it feels like a choice to have your Satanist obsessed with glam rock!

Stef: I’m super on the fence about that.

Drew: I think whether or not every glam rocker is queer, they are using gender-nonconformity to signal an otherness and that is read as queer by mainstream culture.

Stef: Yes, to a certain extent, I think that’s true, but I go back and forth. I’m a big fan of glam rock, T. Rex specifically (who was used a lot in the film), and definitely, it was one of the things that helped me come into my own queerness. But I still think it’s hard to say if it fully is queer/queer-coded or not. Certainly, they were taking aesthetics from women and queer people and using it to their advantage. And then, their maleness is still asserted through their music. We can read that as queer-coded, I think that’s fair, but it always felt more to me like “I can use these aesthetics because at the end of the day, I’m still a ‘straight’ ass MAN and no one can really challenge me on that” as opposed to “I’m going to play with this aesthetic because I’m drawn to it and I am who I am”

Drew: Yeah that’s fair. If anything I’d say they can get away with expressing queerness without facing the same consequences but it is still an expression of queerness.

I also think it’s interesting in the context of who someone is vs. how they are perceived. Because I think this ties back to Longlegs as homophobic. I do think many will watch this movie and just be scared by Satan and scared by androgynous Longlegs and be rooting for the FBI. I do not think most audiences will be reflecting on Oz Perkins as the son of Anthony Perkins and what the film is unpacking about the history of queer villains and all the other things we’re talking about.

But does that matter? I’ve really shifted on this over the years. It’s not that I don’t think media influences people. Silence of the Lambs deeply affected me. I just feel less inclined to get upset over a single movie. I think it’s more about trends and about the culture more broadly. Silence of the Lambs hurt me so much because I hadn’t seen any other trans or trans-coded bodies on-screen at that point.

I would rather have work that’s interesting and challenging than work that is afraid of being misinterpreted. That doesn’t mean artists shouldn’t be aware and thoughtful of the culture in which they’re creating. But I don’t think that should stop artists from taking risks and making interesting choices and playing with these ideas and images.

Again, I just wish more trans artists got the same budgets, because Perkins’ personal connection aside, we do have sharper takes…

Stef: I mean, yes, I’m with you entirely on all of this. I don’t think people are going to be reflecting on Oz Perkins’ thoughts about his father and mother, specifically, and what Longlegs is doing to kind of unpack all of that personal and cinematic baggage. But to walk away from it wondering if it’s homophobic feels like something completely misfired for that person watching

And I’m not trying to be mean. But I’m just wondering about all of the tropes and stereotypes swirling in that person’s head that made them come to that conclusion.

Drew: I’m not sure I agree! Because those tropes and stereotypes do exist. Whether or not the individual asking those questions believes them or not, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to know that other people will bring that baggage to the film. I’m just not sure it matters.

Stef: Yes, I’m not refuting that at all. I’m just wondering about the part where they’re immediately jumping to that conclusion. Like the mental processes of that.

And then I also wonder like, do people think it’s impossible for queer and trans people to be utterly awful human beings? Because let’s say Longlegs IS queer and androgynous…what would be the issue with that? Even if that were true and the portrayal is the way it is, there’s not a moment in there where it seems like Perkins is making a broad statement about whether or not queer and trans people are inherently good or bad.

Drew: I agree with you on that. But I do think there’s a difference between someone even like Norman Bates who gets real character development vs. Longlegs who is more of a specter.

Despite the trope starting with Hitchcock (either Psycho or Murder! from 1930), most copycats fail to capture the depth of humanity that Hitchcock always gave his queer villains.

Stef: That I do agree with, yes.

There is a huge difference between a Norman Bates and a Buffalo Bill.

Drew: A lot of the best queer horror — whether reclaimed by queers or intentionally queer — has queer people as the villains. But I do think the best of that work grants a personhood (or monstrous variant on personhood) that makes it feel different from the work that’s harder to stomach.

Longlegs does not grant personhood to Longlegs but, as discussed, I do think it’s at least playing with the trope rather than presenting it in a straight-forward manner.

Stef: I agree with that entirely. If we’re thinking about Silence of the Lambs as being THE biggest influence in the creation of Longlegs, then it makes sense to me that the model of taking away that humanity is being used here. I just think the model is being used for a completely different means (as we keep pointing out).

Drew: Absolutely.

Stef: And just to get to the very basic premise of this conversation, it feels exceptionally boring to ask, “Is this movie homophobic?” I’m not saying that movies and other media aren’t homophobic — they certainly are — but I’m always wondering like, what does that MEAN for us in the long run? And what does that mean for that piece of work?

Drew: Right. It suggests this idea that a work of art is either Good or Bad. Even if art is homophobic, I’m far more interested in discussing how and in what ways and what is it trying to do vs. what is it actually doing.

Stef: Exactly, me too. And maybe that’s just because I’m older now and I feel very comfortable in who I am and I’m overly confident in the communities of people around me. But it feels much more productive to discuss the processes that make it feel like the message is homophobia rather than the message itself. The message might be there or not, people might understand or not, people might act because of it or not, but what are we learning from that exactly? I don’t think very much.

Drew: Yeah it’s definitely a conclusion I’ve reached with age. I used to be far more concerned about a movie being Harmful. Now I’m like… well what’s harmful is when 90% of mainstream media suggests xyz about the police or the government or whatever. It’s not one work of art. It’s the stories we tell as a whole.

And when a work of art is at least doing something interesting with these tropes and ideas, diving into what it’s doing is more interesting than speaking in broad statements.

Stef: I totally agree. And I think the impact a film CAN have is at least partially dependent on the stories being told all around us all the time. Do I think the potential queerness of Longlegs is going to make some people all of a sudden think queer and trans people are out to get their families and children? It feels like that could only happen if they mostly believed that was true already because of everything going on the last few years.

Drew: Right. One horror movie is no longer going to be someone’s first and only introduction to androgyny.

Longlegs is now in theatres.

Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!