Pop Culture Happy Hour - Queer and What's Making Us Happy

Episode Date: December 13, 2024

The movie Queer stars Daniel Craig as you've never seen him: as a junkie prowling the streets, hooking up, shooting up and guzzling tequila. He meets a handsome young man (Drew Starkey) he longs to connect with, and they embark on a quest into the jungle in search of a drug that will unite them on a deep, spiritual level. Directed by Luca Guadagnino (Challengers, Call Me By Your Name), the film is based on a short novel by William S. Burroughs.Follow Pop Culture Happy Hour on Letterboxd at letterboxd.com/nprpopculture.Subscribe to NPR Plus at plus.npr.org or make a gift at donate.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Hi, it's Glenn Weldon. Before we start the show, we're closing in on the end of another year. And our team is looking back at all the great conversations we've been able to bring you in 2024 because of your support. We dove into the sleeper hits and the shows you shouldn't sleep on, the sequels and the prequels and our favorite binge watches. We stayed up all night to catch you up on the Oscars and the Emmys. And we debated the best fictional bands and the pop culture hills will die on. And it's all because listeners like you step up to support our work, either by giving to your local station or by joining NPR. Plus. NPR Plus has grown a lot this year, and we want to say an extra special thank you to those supporters right now. You know who you are. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, NPR plus is a sweet way to support the independent public media you rely on from NPR. When you sign up for a simple recurring donation, you support our mission of creating a more informed public and get special perks for more than 25 NPR podcasts like sponsor-free listening, bonus episodes, and even exclusive and discounted items from the NPR shop and the NPR Wine Club. By donating now, you'll fund not only NPR's award-winning journalism across the country and around the world,

but also the stories that make you laugh out loud, the ones that make you cry because they resonate so deeply, and the quirky ones that can only come from the wonderful, wacky world of public radio. Join us on the Plus side today at plus.npr.org. Thanks. Queer stars Daniel Craig as you've never seen him, as a junkie prowling the streets, hooking up, shooting up, and guzzling tequila. He meets a handsome young man he longs to connect with, and they embark upon a quest into the jungle in search of a drug that will unite them on a deep spiritual level.

At least that's the idea. I'm Glenn Weldon and we're talking about queer on this episode of Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR. Joining me today is NPR film critic Bob Mondello. Hey, Bob. Hey, good to be here. Good to have you. Also with us is journalist and author of We See Each Other,

a black trans journey through TV and film. Trevelle Anderson, hey, Trevelle. Hello, hello. Hello, hello. Also with us is entertainment host and culture commentator Ryan Mitchell. Welcome back, Ryan. Everybody buckle up. We got a boofy to talk about. He got something to talk about. Indeed. And that is queer, which is based on an unfinished short story by William S. Burroughs. It's a fictionalized account of his life in Mexico City in the 1950s.

Daniel Craig plays Lee, a dissolute, expatriate American in a wrinkly white suit who spends his days and nights looking for sex and drugs and booze. One night he meets the young Aloof Allerton and another expat American. and becomes infatuated. Allerton is played with patrician reserve by Drew Starkey. Lee's longing for Allerton gets rejected, but only sort of and only intermittently, which just drives Lee even further into horny despair. He convinces Ellerton to accompany him to the deepest jungle in the hopes of finding a powerful drug that could connect their minds and their souls for good. Queer is the latest film by Luca Guadagnino, the director behind Call Me By Your Name and Challengers. And for this film, he reteamed with Challenger's screenwriter, Justin

Karitzkus. It is in theaters now, and I have so many thoughts, deeply conflicted and complicated and layered and tangled thoughts about this. So help me, Bob, kick us off. What'd you think of queer? Well, I kind of liked it. I assume you're coming to me first because I am almost old enough to have lived it. Not quite. I would have had to be more about 10 years earlier. But it was really intriguing for me to see that period replayed in this way. And the self-loathing of the main character, which is prevalent, yes. He's really uncomfortable within his skin. And to watch Daniel Craig playing with that, I thought was really interesting because Craig was doing a lot of, I guess today you'd almost call them swishy, but they were stereotyped movements and stereotyped ways of speaking and being

cute or what he thought was cute in a way that wasn't necessarily effeminate. It was a really interesting thing to see because I remember seeing it in gay bars back in the late 60s so that it's outdated. A lot of what you're looking at on screen is of another era. All of what you're looking on screen is of another era. And it's, I thought it was really interesting to see it play out. How about you, Treville? You know, beautiful gowns, right? Like, It looks wonderful. I should note, I saw it with, you know, regular folks in a theater, right? And so I have a little bit of that kind of feeding into my experience.

Sure. But I found the story quite light and thin. And it didn't feel connected to the place and the space that, you know, we're said to be in in 1950s Mexico City. I deeply hear exactly what you say, Bob, I completely agree with you. And I think for those reasons, it's why I'm kind of ambivalent about the final product. Because so much of it feels like it should have already existed and be up on the shelf with a merchant ivory production. Sure.

Right. And yet I felt I wanted more. I just wanted more. Okay. That's right. You know, I was probably bringing a lot to it, right? I will concede that I probably did that. Okay.

Ryan, did you want more or did you want less? What did you think of this movie? I absolutely wanted less of it. I think I love to bring in cultural, iconic references. And the wonderful NeNe Lake said, whatever that means. And that's how I felt when I left the theater. I thought it was one long-winded and very Guadenae no fashion. And it honestly left me feeling like hung over with exhaustion because I did not know where he

wanted me to go. I think Trayville is completely correct when they're saying that the story is thin. It just felt like, why am I sitting through this? And I kind of got that from the general consensus with the people that I saw it with. It felt like what was the point? And for me, Luca sits at this intersection of loving to have a one. one-sided conversation with himself. That's interesting.

That's nice. That's a good one because, again, I ended up admiring this film even when I thought it was being self-indulgent. And then, you know, I kind of caught myself. As soon as I came up with that word self-indulgent, it was like, well, this is a film about addiction. And to ding a film about addiction is being self-indulgent isn't really fair, you know, right? I mean, or is it?

Because it did feel like if I was calling this film self-indulgent, it's kind of like going to the opera and being like, what's with all the singing? Why are people singing? You know what I mean? It's kind of the project. It's kind of what this is about. And this is told from the point of view of the addict, which means we have to get some sense,

for it to work at all, we have to get some sense of that need, that longing, right, that yearning. And that's what I credit Daniel Craig in a big way for doing here. This is a fearless performance, whatever you think of it. Absolutely. It's a pretty fearless performance. I agree. Daniel's the best part.

And what I got from it was mostly a very complicated portrait of that longing because, as Bob said, this thing is so shot through with self-loathing, which is burrows. Like, if you want to do burrows, you've got to get that's self-hatred because that's there. And this version of Burroughs, this Lee, to Bob's point, he wants people to think he is taking a kind of pride.

He's preening in what he would consider his degeneracy, right? He's proud of his drugs and his drinking and his homosexual acts. He doesn't consider himself gay. We'll get into that. But like, he's proud of that all in a perverse way because it's exactly what you said, Bob. He wants to be perceived as in control. And of course, the film makes very clear that everybody around him. sees him as a drunk junkie fool, who is also one way that manifests, that performative quality

manifests in Lee is he is performatively disgusted by other queer folk he sees as more effeminate than he is. That's fair, right? Because that's something that still poisons the queer community. That is accurate. I didn't see a lie in that. I also like that this film doesn't really let Lee off the hook, right? Because he's not, we see his flaws.

Talk to me more about Daniel Craig in this role. Well, I think the thing that I'm hearing the most about his performance. is that it's what you said, fearless. And I'm curious about that because I think a lot of people seem to think that this is his step away from James Bond, as if he had never done anything before James Bond, for instance. And the weirdness about that for me, I mean, him playing a closeted gay man doesn't seem like it should be in this day at age, all that shocking, right? And people keep talking about it as if it's fearless because he's smooching with,

another man on screen, which is like, yeah, and? I mean, it's called acting, right? It's not a complicated thing to pretend to be in love with someone you're not actually in love with, and the gender of that person shouldn't make very much difference. And apparently it does to an awful lot of critics who are writing about it. I love what you said about it ought to have been a merchant ivory film. That was really a lovely observation that did not occur to me at all, that in retrospect strikes me is absolutely right.

Yeah. So about 30 to 45 minutes into this two-hour picture. Jeez. Okay. I just felt like we were getting very quotidian, right? Like we were getting very regular, degular, like, no story, no, the plot is not moving forward in any particular way. And for me, a lot of those old.

school pictures such as, you know, Maurice, right, have these really great, we regard them as great now, right, scenes of these closeted, right, queer folks just existing, just like, you know, being in love in their own world. And it is quite basic and unremarkable because it should be, right, in its normalcy, but it felt to me a little kind of like the soundtrack of the film, anachronistic, right, for what we were taking in or the broader world, right, that we find ourselves taking it in. But I also wanted to say to your point, Bob, in terms of some of the reaction to Daniel Craig's performance and how people are defining it as fearless, I think you're right. Some people are looking at the fearless.

as this straight man, marrying it all, going there, right? And I think a lot of people look at that as like, oh, my God, versus if we were talking about two openly queer men, right, engaging in this role. I wonder if folks would also be saying, right, and framing the fearlessness of Daniel Craig's performance in particular in that way. And so to your point, Glenn, I think it's important, right, that we're going to We reframe it and we say that Daniel Craig, it's more than just him, you know, doing the gay thing, right? It is him building in and adding nuance to this character that so many of us are actually familiar with, regardless of what generations we come from.

Interesting. You know, the really interesting thing about Daniel's performance is his ability to make not only Starkey's character, but the audience feel suffocated. I was kind of enamored by that. I felt myself kind of like cringing at the moments that felt like love bombing and the moments that felt like a whiff of daddy issues were all kind of happening in this mixture of moments where I was like, why is Starkey going through this? Why hasn't he left and completely left him alone? Is he also an agent of chaos? Does he also love this? And what is Daniel's kind of moment of like not being able to read the room, which I think we mentioned,

before in the ways that he maneuvered in these kind of queer spaces are showed up in queerness. It was very interesting to like witness these moments through Daniel's performance. But I think to kind of wrap it all together, what you all are saying, it reminds me of such a dated moment of like a Brokeback Mountain where you're getting these actors who are getting praise for doing this simple thing, right? And it does feel like, are we really looking at this film and the nuances of how we should kind of be viewing this work, right? It hasn't really been there in most of the reviews that I've seen.

I've been looking for, like, queer critics who are actually looking at this, and queer critics are actually hating it versus what our counterparts are actually really praising and enjoying this film. And I think that's very interesting to see. There is also, though, a generational divide I've seen, right? To your point, Bob. This queer critic. See, yeah.

I have seen older, you know, more seasons. critics who are queer, who are members of community, being able to articulate, right, something that we can't, right, because we didn't live it. Right. I remember the period. It was still kind of frightening to go to a gay bar. And this novel was Burroughs going to Mexico where he could be safe from that in a way, that as an expat, he could live a different life.

And I think I was seeing all of that through my... own perceptions back in the 60s of older men who appeared to me to be queer. And my father worked in the Department of Justice and was dealing with Frank Kameney and people like that. These are legendary figures in the gay community now. But at the time, he was in an irritation for my father who he sort of had to deal with. And all of that is sort of informing my view of this. I think because I knew that the novel was unfinished, I wasn't expecting it to go someplace. I figured it wouldn't get there, right? So that even if it had a sort of a revved up start, it wasn't going to end up someplace. So I wasn't as bothered by the fact that it

wasn't really traveling as you folks were. My problem is that I had a very personal reaction to this. I hear myself saying it. And it's personal and I'm not sure that it applies to how most people will see the film. I think one of the strengths of the film is that we all see pieces that are going to be personal to us. I mean, for me, it was Drew, Dr. Starky's Allerton, I think, is perfect because he's so withholding. He wants to be the object of lust. He gets off

on being the object of lust, but refuses to give back anything. So you do, we do with the audience, what Lee's doing, you lean in, you know, you keep projecting you, you fall into him because he's such a blank slate, and it's a power dynamic. He's in control of this relationship. And when he does show physical affection, he

makes it seem like it's a favor to Lee, like it's a grudging decision that he makes. And I think a lot of queer folk, especially this queer folk, is going to recognize that. And this is a tangent, it'll get cut. But like in college, I went to a nerd school. We didn't have any sports teams, but we did have an ultimate frisbee team. And period. Everybody else was pointing extras on the campus. The Frisbee players were the hot ones. And the amount of nights I spent in the dorm room of this or that frisbee player just hanging out, right? Being buddies and nothing would happen and nothing would happen. And nothing would happen. And then something would happen. And then for weeks, nothing would happen. Like that. It's not a happy memory, but it's something that Starkey embodies completely. That's where it finds this film. Yeah. You know, it's, oh, yes. Both of you just said really great things to me, right?

Bob, thank you so much for sharing all of that. Yeah, seriously. Because I think it also reminds us that sometimes films don't have to go anywhere, right? Like, sometimes we can just sit in a moment. Or sit in an ayahuasca trip that, like, last almost as long as a real ayahuasca trip. And I do have to say, because of the length of the film, because of its pacing, and because it doesn't go anywhere, it is in a really interesting way this, you know, case study, if you

will, of a particular time period. And I do think that that has utility and that is important. Now is cousin Pookie and Auntie Bam Bam going to enjoy themselves? and find that to be a worthy $25 ticket, you know. Thank you so much. When they leave, I'm not sure, right? Because the people around me when I saw it, right, they were checking their phones multiple times, right? And so I think that's an important difference to note. And I think others who might be more detached from some of those communities or some of those

interest areas, I think they might find it a little bit more, you know, I don't want to say challenging, but, you know, will it be worthy? Actually, challenging. It would be generous. I think challenging works because when I think of this, a lot of people are probably got, the excitement around this film is coming from a post-challenger's world, right? Where everyone was obsessed with challengers. It was a part of, you know, popular culture in a really meaningful way.

And so they're going into this thinking like, oh, there's Omar Apollo, who's a Grammy nominated artists. We're so excited. All I'm seeing online is, you know, about like the sex scenes and how this is going to be a completely different take from Call Me by Your Name. And, you know, there's actually, we're going to see something really revolutionary here. But if you're not bringing anyone in, it's kind of like, what's the point? You could have just had a backyard viewing and showed this film to them. And that's perfect. And for me, I think I am coming into this not knowing about Burroughs life, not understanding that context. until I did research in preparation for the show. But regular folks aren't doing that. They're going into this film thinking it's going to be the next memeable, internet worthy, like film, and how are we going to talk about this? And if you can't even understand all the dream sequences or any of the context that's surrounding this, it's like, did the film do its job?

Yes, we can sit with something that just can be. But did it actually results in anything? Did it create feelings? Did it really manifest in the ways that I think these creators wanted it to? And I'm not necessarily sure it did. I feel, Bob, like I need to take over the old man yells at Cloud mantle from you because you're not rising to it. And I will. I feel like somebody has to let people know that this is a radical interpretation of the book, a book that I have never read as about love.

But that book is about lust. It is a good deal gnarlier and grittier and filthier and dirtier than this movie is. And that's because Guadonino and I did not read the same book. In the press notes, he says, the novel revealed a truly romantic character who was yearning for love, to which I say, no it effing didn't. I don't know what book you read.

He goes on to say, to make a movie from Burroughs about Burroughs, that is a touching, moving, and emotional experience is something that has not been done before. And the tone of the entire book is just shot through with this twisted, screwed up self-loving. So, like, the entire tone of that book is like,

well, of course, that's beautiful boy, and when any part of this drunk, junkie, queer, pathetic person than I was. And that's not empowering, right? That's not a moment of representation. But it doesn't need to be, damn it? I mean, like, it's true. It's what this guy was feeling and what we're getting here. I mean, the last moment in this movie is a moment of tenderness and love, which is just not the guy.

And I know we're getting into dead author territory. And we talk many times about your intent doesn't matter. What you wanted the movie to be about doesn't matter. What matters is what you made. Yeah, that's fair. But turning burrows into a gay romance, even one that says layered and screwed up as this one, I mean, I would just set this man's teeth on edge. And I don't care, like, because he was screwed up. But, like, he didn't consider himself gay because at his time, gay was a word for a political movement, a community, an identity that he did not, on any part of he was only too happy to engage in gay acts.

He loved gay sex. He did not like gay identity, homosexual identity, queer identity. And I think that is very, you know, hypocritical on his part. It's reductive on his part. But don't you have a historical responsibility to reflect that in this movie? I mean, I don't read Burroughs to come away with empowering thoughts about queer love. Now, fair, fair, fair, except, remember, these are made-up characters, right? I mean, granted, they are, it's semi-autobiographical, but it's still made-up characters.

So he's softened it, that he prettifies things. I mean, Guadernino purifies things always, right? And I feel like some of that condescension or disgust of queer kind of culture did kind of come up when Daniel's character was in conversation with Jason Schwartman's character. Jason Schwartman, of course, playing a version of Allen Ginsberg in this film. And you kind of see that kind of play out in a big way. And so I wonder if that's a subtle way of him kind of doing this and adding in that texture there. That's something that I thought about because Jason, for me, was a highlight of the film. I thought that it was the comedy moments.

I was like, if we can have more Jason on this screen, please. I always wonder how these films work when it is like about like a cisgendered gay men going to like Mexico City and exploring this and like kind of like seeing this very through like a white lens and not really through kind of anything that is of culture. And the one times that we are seeing people of color in this film is either through sex acts or service. And it always, it makes it a little bit more complicated for me as someone who is sitting in the space of these identities and at these intersections. And so for me, it's like I, sometimes my disgust of it kind of like, you're running away clearly from your life. So now you're going to kind of impose on other people's lives and become this hot mess. And it just, I don't know, it's complicated for me and when I think about it overall. Yeah.

I mean, the prettified Mexico City seems. endemic of something that is the project of this film and it's the project of this film that I'm struggling with. It's not the performances at all. It's what's behind it. Yeah, I agree.

I, we are struggling. We're piecing over everything, but I don't who's the target? Again, who is this for? This is the question we ask on the show all the time. Who is this for? It's for me so I can get angry about it. It's for Bob's so we can see something reflected. It's for y'all.

so that y'all can articulate as well as you did here. There you go. Your struggles with it. But for most people, it's just a weird movie that has a very long ayahuasca trip that lasts longer than a real one. Tell us what you think about queer. Find us on Facebook at facebook.com slash p-c-h-h. And on letterboxed at letterboxed.com slash npr pop culture.

We'll have a link in our episode description. Up next, what is making us happy this week? Now it's time for our favorite segment of this week and every week. What is making us happy this week? Bob, kick us off. What's making you happy this week? Feeling nostalgic. The thing I always used to do with my mom when I was a kid at this time of year was make bourbon balls.

This is when I was five or six years old. And I have the recipe still that she had in her little box of cards. And I made bourbon balls the other day. I've got a picture of it. I will put it up on the web. You guys will be able to see me in my craziness. Bourbon balls are just amazing. They're just little delicious, you know, like brownie-like things.

And I make them every year, and I make way too many, and it's just fun. What I remember most about them was two weeks later when we finally ate them, and me at five or six years old would have, you know, a little bit of one of them and make a terrible face because it tasted like alcohol. And then pretend to be drunk for the next five minutes. And everybody at whatever party would just think that was adorable. And anyway, that's what I'm going for. Thank you very much. Bob, Ryan, what is making you happy this week? Oh, my God.

Can we please talk about how I'm obsessed with somebody somewhere on Max? Oh, my God. What a great choice. It has been a show that it took me a minute to get into you. I remember watching the first season, like the first episode and was like, okay, this moves really slow. But for some reason, it just clicked for me recently, and I've binged it, and I'm so sad that it's in its third and final season. Bridget Everett and that entire cast is absolutely incredible. And it's actually become like a comfort show for me.

It's this exploration of being an outsider in a small rural town. And as someone who grew up in the South and in a small suburban rural town, it really hits in all the best ways. So if you haven't watched, I totally recommend it. That is somebody somewhere on HBO, a show that we love here on this show. Thank you very much, Ryan. Trey Bell, what is making you happy this week? I have another TV show recommendation, but it's a throwback. I recently started a rewatch.

of the amazing race. Another BCHH favorite. Listen, a throwback from another time. Okay, we were a different world back then. Oh, yeah. But it is so beautiful just to see regular, regular people, you know, traversing the world and many of their fears. I find it quite entertaining and quite calming. So check it out.

So that's great. We love that show. Where are you watching it on? I'm watching it on Paramount Plus. That is the end. amazing race. Thank you very much, Tre Bell. What's making me happy? Look, it's the holiday season. That's not what's making me happy, because whether you like it or not, at some point every year, the culture just gets seized by this collective fever, and I see it as a biological process. You'll get

through it, you just got to drink fluids and get plenty of bed rest, because if you don't, you're just going to exhaust yourself. It'll last even longer. The way I get through it is not by fighting it, but by engaging with it on my own terms, which is by listening to the great Tim Curry, reading a story that has been co-opted by Big Christmas for far too long. That is A Christmas Carol, colon, a signature performance by Tim Curry. It's on Audible. I know what you're saying.

Look, Christmas Carol, it's sappy, that's sentimental, it's treacle, yes, that's why you need it. Tim Curry in the mix. He cuts through the treacle. He does not milk the sentiment. What he leans into is the language and the voice of the narration, which, if you forget, and it's been a long time since you actually read it, it's my favorite thing.

I just heard of my annual listening this morning and I always forget how much very funny throat clearing there is in those opening pages where Dickens is just You know, he's like, why is it dead as a doorknail and not dead as a coffin nail? And he goes into this tangent about Hamlet's Father's Ghost. It's just the best. That is a Christmas Carol, a signature performance by Tim Curry.

It's on Audible. Audible, of course, is owned by Amazon, which supports NPR and pays to distribute some of our content. And that is what's making me happy this week. And if you want links for what we recommended, plus some more recommendations, sign up for our newsletter at npr.org slash pop culture newsletter. And that brings us to the end of our show. Bob Mondello, Trey Bell Anderson, Ryan Mitchell. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you.

Thank you for having me. This was a very fun discussion. This episode was produced by Lenin Sherburn and edited by Jessica Reedy and Mike Katzv and Hello Come In provides our theme music. Thanks for listening to Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR. I'm Glenn Weldon and we'll see you all next week.