Monday, January 19, 2026

Jacob Tierney | Heated Rivalry (Season 1, Ep. 2: Olympians) / 2025 [TV series]

without even a goodbye kiss

by Douglas Messerli

Jacob Tierney (screenwriter and director, based on the novel Game Changers by Rachel Reid) Heated Rivalry / 2025 [TV series]


Season 1, Episode 2 “Olympians”

 

By this time Shane and Ilya have long been sexting one another under female code names. And sexually there is a long, somewhat unbelievable gap of two long years since their game in the fall of 2013 when they finally meet up again at Shane’s apartment, now one of several places he owns, where Ilya have the promised anal sex for the first time with Shane.    


     For all of his previous quick decisions and sometimes almost dangerously quirky moves, Ilya turns out to be a sensitive lover, checking several times whether or not his sexual penetration is actually hurting Shane, not something one might expect from the rather temperamental Russian, learning how to pleasurably bottom.

     And that seemingly tempestuousness seems to be much in play at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Japan, when Ilya begins to ignore Shane’s texts when the Russian Hockey team loses.

      We can only suspect that it has something to do with his return to Russia, the appearance for the first time of his much decorated and somewhat mentally afflicted father (Yaroslav Poverlo) who is obviously far more disturbed by his son’s failure to lead his team to success than are the Russian authorities.


    Moreover, the appearance of the Russian Minister of the Interior, a former goaltender, and his daughter, who turns out to be Svetlana Sergeevna Vetrova, Ilya’s occasional sex partner, cannot help matters. Although she suddenly appears, this time quite elegantly dressed at the formal embassy party, pulling Ilya away from the older men, the room into which she leads him is just as dangerous, inhabited as it is by Ilya’s former boyhood male sexual partner, Sasha (Kaden Connors), a heavy cocaine user who also happens to be the son of Ilya’s former coach.

    As Sasha hangs out in an empty bathtub inexplicably located in the middle of room, Svetlana almost appears to be delivering Ilya up to him and to his past in Russia, leaving the two men together soon after. Sasha tries desperately to rekindle old times, and almost succeeds, before Ilya turns him away, reminding him that they are no longer children. Sasha hardly seems to be phased, however, as he hurries off to another party, where, with all the beautiful athletes in town, he declares he will surely find another sexual partner.


    The danger Ilya faces for having once been sexually active in Russia is made even more apparent when, soon after, while Shane meets up with his friends Scott Hunter (François Arnaud) and Carter Vaughn (Kolton Stewart), captain of the New York Admirals and Scott’s best friend, casually comment on the bravery of the apparently gay figure skaters performing from conservative Russia.

    Shane attempts to again support Ilya in person, but is met with total hostility and sent away so that they will not be see together, reminding us of Shane’s paranoia in the first episode.

    If there is any hint of illogic in this series resulting from the female-created romance, aimed primarily at a female audience, it is the long periods in which the moody men remain sexually separated from one another. One has the feeling that in reality, most males—particularly those involved with the necessarily quick determinations of star athletes—would have long ago given up on one another, no matter how delightful and fulfilling the sex has been. If they had not needed to be so closeted by this time, like Sasha, Ilya and Shane would have sought out the company of other sexy athletes in the year just before gay marriage was legalized in the US and had already been in many European countries.


   In this case, however, Ilya continues to ignore Shane’s texting attempts as he now reproves his athletic abilities, helping his team with the MLH championship. Finally in the summer of 2014, while backstage at the MLH awards, Shane openly expresses his frustrations for Ilya’s distance. The two openly joke with one another as they serve as hosts to the event, Ilya even challenging Shane to provide him with his cellphone number, Shane responding in the negative to continue their myth of being distant challengers.

     But when the two immediately after meet up in the bathroom, the kisses return, Shane finally making some demands, including that Ilya get down at that very moment on the floor to suck him off. But Ilya, always the wiser and far more sophisticated of the two, suggests that instead of dirtying his tux, why not return to the “boring” affair, but not before betting on his winning the player of the year award. If he wins, Shane must do what he commands, otherwise he will obey Shane.

     Despite Ilya’s obvious fears, he has met all the challenges it has taken to put his team back in first place, and the year does belong to him as this time he is chosen as the winner.


    In the beautifully lit hotel room high above the city where he takes his lover after the ceremony, he demands that Shane strip and he plays the voyeur before the two once more engage in almost rapturous sex.

     In a brief time of actual communication, Shane wonders if he will return to Russia again this summer and, even more intensely, attempts to ask about how difficult it is for Ilya in his native country, suggesting perhaps that he need not return. But once more Ilya shuts down, insisting that he get his sleep and sending Shane off into the night.

     In the elevator, Shane begins a somewhat angry response before quickly deleting it. He begins a new message: “We didn’t even get to kiss one another goodbye,” but deletes that text as well. It appears that they will now have to wait once again until the new season.

     

Los Angeles, January 19, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).

Sean Patrick McCarthy (Shon Keane) | The Prom Queen / 2000

shower curtain meets closet

by Douglas Messerli

 

Sean Patrick McCarthy (Shon Keane) (screenwriter and director) The Prom Queen / 2000 [18 minutes]

 

Shon Keane’s The Prom Queen is frankly a movie that’s hard to love, despite the fact that the two central figures Corey (Todd A. Corvo), a punk rocker high school student who is apparently cis male but daily dresses as a transvestite who hangs out with the school nerd, Michael (Ben Provo). Both are the school losers and are bullied, particularly Corey, which is why we feel anything for them.


   But the situation even at the turn of the Millenium is totally unbelievable, since Corey plans to go to the prom with Michael, and as they go to rent a tux for Michael, Corey, sensing an attraction from one of his bullies, Peter (Jacob Garrett White), ditches his regular and takes Peter out to the “rock” for a good suck and fuck session, which Petey apparently quite likes.


    If you still believe in the logic of this short film, you will naturally predict that although it appears that Peter is a closeted gay boy who finds Corey to be “beautiful,” he is, in reality, dating the school bitch, Sara (Emma Welch), who might remind you of somewhat of Tracy Flick in the 1999 movie Election except that she lacks Tracy’s dogged intelligence. Peter and Sara obviously will be this year’s king and queen of the Prom.



    Corey ultimately does attend the school prom with the bland, red-shirted Michael, Corey accessorizing in a plastic shower curtain as both dress and a robe, arriving to the prom in regal style, whereupon he attempts to out Peter to his girlfriend and his bully gang in front of the entire senior class in a literal brawl between, as one of the general descriptions of the film put it, “shower curtain and closet.”

     Inevitably, the punk boy is taken out and beaten, befriended at film’s end only by his nerdy “boyfriend.”

     All of the events are fairly predictable, and nothing in the film—except perhaps for Corey’s whimsical costumes and hair coloring—are even slightly of interest. Corey and Michael are maybe just the most unlikeable of lost gay boys you might even encounter, in some ways as obnoxious and unappealing as the heterosexual bully boys. At least Peter is cute in an odd short of manner, and one wishes that the film had more closely followed him to explore just how much he was forced to suffer in having to date the bitchy Sara just to keep the dread secret of his attraction to the punk homo trash world Corey represents.


     Usually in such outrageous teen fantasies at least the gay boys have the opportunity to save the day, right the situation, or resolve their own high school tortures; but by the close of The Prom Queen Corey and Michael sit side by side with Corey in tears, even his temporary infatuation with the prom king having proven to be pointless. And in the end we have to wonder what was all the fuss about.

     Collected in a DVD anthology with several far more charming and ambitious films of the period in Boxer Shorts, it is hard to see today what attracted the several audiences of the gay festivals in which it was lauded (it won an award at the Hamptons International Film Festival). Clearly the sheer ludicrousness and tenacity of its hero inured it to some viewers. I just found it to be shrill, but then I’ve never liked a single movie that was about a high school senior prom. I purposely attended mine with a female who was the school photographer, a large camera strapped about her neck the whole time. I brought her an orchid, but when I think back I wonder if she could have even worn it with that contraption bouncing on her breast. And a couple of years earlier the school prom king, also the captain of the football team, was secretly a gay boy I would have died to have gone to the prom with, but in 1961 no one could even imagine such a possibility. And fortunately, I lived; while he took a gun to his head a few years later.

 

Los Angeles, January 19, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2026).

    

Sunday, January 18, 2026

Abram Room | Третья Мещанская (Tretya Meshchanskaya) (Bed and Sofa) / 1927

bringing home someone to love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Viktor Shklovsky and Abram Room (screenplay), Abram Room (director) Третья Мещанская (Tretya Meshchanskaya) (Bed and Sofa) / 1927

 

Russian director (Lithuanian born) Abram Room’s 1927 feature comedy 3rd Meshchanskaya Street better known in Europe and the US as Bed and Sofa is most definitely of interest to LGBTQ audiences, but not generally for the reasons for which some commentators and critics have claimed it to be. The early kiss between its two male leads Nikolai (nicknamed Kolya) (Nikolai Batalov) and Vladimir (nicknamed Volodya) (Vladimir Fogel) is not the first homosexual kiss on screen, and, in fact, is not even necessarily a homosexual kiss.


     As I have shown throughout my volumes of Queer Cinema there were many other gay kisses before it, including several instances of males bussing men in drag (Gilbert Saroni, in transvestite drag kisses a French count on the lips in in Sigmund Lubin’s Meet Me at the Fountain in 1904; the two male suitors of Charles Chaplin in drag kiss each other on the lips, accidently, in Chaplin’s A Woman of 1915; and numerous such films are filled with homosexual jest). Charles IX of France in D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance from 1916 kisses nearly all the handsome men in his court on the lips, announcing his homosexuality in the act. And, of course, the famous truly gay drama of 1919 Different from the Others represents gay males kissing. There are other examples, including several early porn films of the 1920s, in particular Le Ménage modern du Madame Butterfly, which screened not only kissing but male on male fellatio and masturbation with cum flying in all directions.


    But, in fact, the kiss that Kolya plants on the lips of his old military buddy Volodya when he takes him home in Bed and Sofa, offering him up a place to sleep on his and his wife Liuda’s (Lyudmila Semyonova) couch, is not at all what some contemporary commentators make it out to be. In Russian culture and in many others throughout the world, a greeting between close friends is often expressed with lip kissing, just as the French kiss both cheeks.

    Truth be told, the first truly passionate homosexual kiss was shown on screen in the very same year in the US director William A. Wellman’s Wings, a scene that is often simply dismissed, quite mistakenly I insist, as an expression of deep bonding between two military buddies. They may never have had sex, but that kiss is one of true and deep love which they surely, had the other lived, would have expressed in bodily lovemaking—if, as the directly hints, they haven’t already.

    In fact, Kolya and Volodya may have had sex previously since they describe having spent much of the war under the same greatcoat, much in the way that the two cowboys joined one another in the same tent in Brokeback Mountain (2005).


    Moreover, they not only do they kiss one another in that early scene in the movie, but kiss again later, when Kolya returns home after a business trip, holding hands over his friend’s eyes as a surprise, Volodya mistaking him for Liuda by planting another big kiss on his lips that this time, although a mistake, does not at all represent a simply friendly greeting but real love. By repeating the act, the writer and director now truly draw our attention to it as very being very different from Kolya’s kisses with his wife and even later Volodya’s smooches with Liuda. If nothing else, it suggests that something other than mere friendship has transpired between the two.

    What most viewer’s simply miss is that this film actually begins with Kolya, a construction foreman working on the construction of the Bolshoi Theatre, takes his breaks directly under a large male penis of a bronze nude of a male, thus establishing the fact that he literally lives under the rule of smoking every day under the aegis of a male penis.


    That very afternoon he skips a Communist committee meeting to return home early to his wife, before actually running into his old army buddy Volodya on the streets. As in so very many Rainer Werner Fassbinder films beginning with his 1969 movie Love Is Colder Than Death the central figure with a female partner takes his male friend home and, in a sense, offers him up the equal companionship of his wife or female partner as if it were a gift to be shared.

     Granted, Kolya is more macho than Fassbinder’s males, and far more possessive. Yet his behavior is very similar, hinting that he attaches more to his male friendship than to his heterosexual marriage. For soon after he introduces Volodya to his couch, cat, and wife Liuda—almost in that haphazard order—he is sent off on a business trip with the intention of leaving his friend and wife alone. Even Volodya argues he should leave the couch for other sleep quarters, that it certainly wouldn’t look right to neighbors for him to remain in the one-room apartment with Kolya’s wife. But the married man, given his braggadocio behavior, is blind to any possible problem: he’s strong and she’s loyal; what could the problem be?


     The problem, of course, is that he has treated Liuda as a servant, ordering her to scrub the floors and fix his meals—and one point not even able by himself to rid a glass of hot milk its top curdles, forcing her to run for a plate to put them on—without even considering her boredom and general dissatisfaction with their relationship.

     Volodya, a blond beauty cleans up after himself, serves her tea, brings her home a radio and the party newspaper for which he is responsible for one of the presses, and on “Aviator’s Appreciation Day” he takes her out, on one of her very few escapes from he basement one-apartment, for her first plane ride. Her reaction of absolutely giddy and girlish delight expresses it all. A trip to a movie after settles it. He has won her heart and convinces her provincial mind afterwards by telling her fortune where it makes it clear that the jack should top the queen.

    By the time Kolya returns, with Volodya planting that second kiss on his lips, he has already been sequestered to the couch. If for one night he tries to remain at his office, but the next day he is ready to swallow his pride and curl up on the couch. At least at nights he now has the company of his dear male friend as they play endlessly at checkers, symbolizing the homosocial relationship they have developed that utterly removes the woman from their lives.


    Even if some commentators have argued this isn’t precisely a ménage à trois since the men are still uninvolved sexually with one another and are rivalrous about the body remaining in the bed, we can’t help but recognize what is happening. The two men enjoy each other’s company while using the female as a tool of sexual gratification. And if we cannot apply that term to this film then neither can we embrace it regarding Jules and Jim (1962), which is written in that very genre. Except for some early mutual gymnastics there is no obvious portrayal in Truffaut’s film of the two males’ obvious sexual attraction either. Even in the pre-code era, like the later generations after into the late 1970s period directors did not dare be so literal as to openly show the male engaged in homosexual behavior—unless it was an underground porn work such as Le Ménage modern du Madame Butterfly or the 1929 pseudonymously directed The Surprise of the Knight. Literal minds need not apply for deep discussions of films of LGBTQ interest.

    It turns out that, at heart, Volodya is no more attentive to his Liuda (both men describe themselves as her husband) that was Kolya. And bored and feeling even more trapped that before, Liuda begins to alternate, the men shifting night by night between their nights in bed and on the sofa.



    Inevitably Liuda becomes pregnant with neither of these scoundrels (a term later that they apply to themselves) willing to take on the responsibility of possible raising the other’s child. Together they demand that she get an abortion. While waiting to be called, the uncomfortable Liuda looks outside the window spotting a young boy playing with a doll and another child being cared for by his mother. Finally recognizing what she will face if she stays with her husbands, she escapes, quickly returning home to pack and remove all semblances of her image, so that there is no longer

even evidence left her being. Like Nora of A Doll’s House, she will find her own way in the new Russian society, where women are encouraged to work (although in reality could not readily find jobs). Whether Liuda can, in fact, survive in what she hopes will be a less paternalistic society, is open to question. But the important thing is that she will longer allow herself to be defined by the males in her life.


    Left alone, the two men, although admitting as I suggested to their abysmal behavior to her, seem immediately to adapt to the new reality of their now quite clearly homosexual coupling, the one asking for tea, the other responding, “do we have anymore jam?” These works might have been out of a play by Harold Pinter.

    Critic David Robinson summarizes this brief period in which Bed and Sofa was made in terms of what was soon to come in Russian society (although I must say I am highly offended by his choice of adding the qualifier “perhaps” with regard to Gorky’s statement against homosexuals):

 

      “Sex and marriage were a challenging and constant subject of debate for the new Russian Bolsheviks. While many party-line-toers reckoned that revolutionary energies should not be diverted into such private trivia, the brilliant and sophisticated pioneer revolutionary and feminist Alexandra Kollontai recognised that “sexuality is a human instinct as natural as hunger or thirst.” The bourgeois and religious traditions of marriage and family were obviously rejected, in favour of civil marriages, and as late as 1925 there was a (failed) attempt to introduce a bill altogether eliminating distinctions between registered and unregistered marriages. Divorce was an effortless formality. The concept of illegitimacy was eliminated. One consequence was a vast rise in the numbers of abandoned and homeless children, already unmanageable after the Revolution and Civil War; and as one measure to contain it, in 1920 abortion was legalised for the first time in any European country.

     With the Stalinist thirties and a fall in the birth rate, the state took a tighter hold over marriage and sex. In 1934 homosexuality, decriminalised in 1922, again became an offence, with the approval of Maxim Gorki, who declared, short-sightedly perhaps: “Destroy the homosexuals: fascism will disappear.” Abortion was again prohibited, or at least made extremely difficult. Russian moral codes were firmly and durably redefined.”

 

     Russian society in the 1920s was radically changing when came to sex. But fascists, as always, made sure that such open notions of how one perceives the control of one’s own body were abolished. The fact that human body became another way the state could control their citizens lives seems all too familiar in hindsight.

 

Los Angeles, January 18, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2016).

 

Saturday, January 17, 2026

Harry Beaumont | Our Dancing Daughters / 1928

a pretense

by Douglas Messerli

 

Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cummings (screenplay, based on a story and scenario by Josephine Lovett), Harry Beaumont (director) Our Dancing Daughters / 1928

 

Harry Beaumont’s 1928 film, Our Dancing Daughters, pretends to be a lot of things it isn’t and is perhaps better off for the confusions. First the silent film “pretends” to be a talkie. As Matt Bailey writes in “The Silence After Sound: Hollywood’s Last Silent Movies”: “in a year in which the hottest trend of all was the talking picture, Our Dancing Daughters is mute. It is, however, far from silent, because it is one of a handful of strange hybrids that lived for just a few years: it is a sonorized film. While filmed as a silent picture, a soundtrack of music and effects was attached to the prints, allowing for popular songs and jazz riffs, crowd noise and car horns, and even a single line of dialogue (“Come on, Miss Diana! Show us your stuff!) all to be synchronized with the action of the film.”


     As Bailey points out, the myth that suddenly after The Jazz Singer of October 6, 1927, audiences would have nothing to do any longer with silent films, given the fact is that Our Dancing Daughters was a great success, and that it was one of many such films with mixes of various sound recordings made until studios had been able to purchase “sound recording and duplication equipment and soundproofed their studios, and that movie theater owners required just as much time to equip their facilities for sound playback” proves to be just that: a nice film textbook factiod that proves to be untrue. 


      Secondly, the film was widely advertised to be, as the promotional campaign broadcast, “an up-to-the-minute narrative of our pleasure-mad generation.” Joan Crawford, playing in her first major role as Diana “Di” Medford, better known to her set as “Diana the Dangerous,” plays a wild flapper with bobbed hair and the thinnest of eyelashes, while “showing a whole lot of skin”—at one point ripping off half her dress to perform a truly ferocious version of a Charleston for her crowd. Her performance led writer F. Scott Fitzgerald to pen the unforgettable description of both a flapper and Crawford: “Joan Crawford is doubtless the best example of the flapper, the girl you see in smart night clubs, gowned to the apex of sophistication, toying iced glasses with a remote, faintly bitter expression, dancing deliciously, laughing a great deal, with wide, hurt eyes. Young things with a talent for living.”

     Some venues, and even state censor boards banned the film primarily on account of her performance. The mayor of Lynn, Massachusetts, as Bailey points out, “made his decision solely on the advertising for the film,” noting “The cuts advertising this show are indecent, immoral, and lascivious, and it is this character of entertainment that lowers to the very depths the movie picture shows.” Others followed suite, an editorial in the Newberry, South Carolina Observer pontificating that the film was “almost absolutely devoid of intellectual quality” and was made by “exploiters of the sheerest animalism of sex.”

     Ironically, the Crawford character Diana is, at heart, a good girl whose attentions to the male lead, the newly minted millionaire Ben Blaine (John Mack Brown) are completely honest and quite innocent, counterposed to the pretending virtuous Ann “Annikins” (Anita Page), who declares she doesn’t drink, while keeping a flask near her at all times, and repeats several times, “I’m not that kind of girl,” presumably in comparison with the more openly flirtatious Diana, while actually being, as one critic put it, “a gold digging floozy masquerading as an ingénue.” In fact, the good girl, given her own restrictions loses her dumb man, who’s sold on the imitation goody two-shoes whom the moment she snares him begins buying diamond bracelets for every month of her “servitude” and quickly acquires a not-so-secret lover, Freddie (Edward J. Nugent).

     Even Diana’s kind and gentle friend, Beatrice “Bea” (Dorothy Sebastian), who admits to a torrid past (she evidently has had sex with one of her set previous to marriage) catches a wealthy beau in Norman (Nils Asther).

     Confused about how things have turned out, Diana decides she should take a world voyage to think it over why the liars and loose girls get the best men when she has failed.

      Thirdly, despite its Art Deco sets and costumes, its intimations of the rich and famous, Our Dancing Daughters is really a rather old-fashioned melodrama, with the real love displayed mostly between friends Bea and Diana, about whom LGBTQ commentator Derek W. Le Beau observes: 

 

“The two of them are inseparable and have a number of intimate moments together in the film; they kiss on the lips, joke that they’re a couple, and find each other in countless intimate situations sharing intense eye contact – and sometimes even a bed. There’s a lot of subtext in this one.”



      While they do kiss often and even sleep in the same room (in different beds), I’d argue that these two figures are less representations of Sapphic love than they are merely performing the standard Victorian role of close female friends, permitted by the society in general and even Bea’s otherwise fussy husband Norman who demands she have nothing to do with her former set, to engage in an openly “loving” relationship that would certainly not be permitted for males of the same age.

      The gayer sexual implications of this film exist among the male trio of Diana and Bea’s former friends. Early in the film Ben kisses Diana goodnight quite passionately, so intensely in the fact that she pulls away, responding “What a service station you turned out to be!” In the background two of these men play out a similar kiss in imitation of Diana and Ben.


      Later in the film when Diana is visiting Bea at her new home with Norman, the male trio of Freddie and his two friends suddenly appear again as the two women are out for a walk. They suggest that they’ll stop by for visit, but Bea tries to make clear that they not invited (“I’m sorry, but our house isn’t quite ready for guests?”) Nonetheless, to Norman’s strongly disapproving glances—surely based on the fact that he believes one of these young men may have been the one who deflowered his wife—they pop in for visit, also revealing to her husband that Bea has lied about seeing any members of old crowd. Together they mock Ben and Ann’s marriage quoting from a letter “Annikins” has mailed them talking about how dull she finds Ben for admiring the moonlight and sunrise.


      This trio of awfully cute boys don’t really do anything too outrageous other than backing up Freddie’s toast “To the husbands of the women we love;” but it’s enough to raise Norman’s wrath as he sends them packing. They are simply what you might describe as male gadflies, boys as interested in one another as they are in the women they pretend to court. Their relationship is quite evidently a sort of late adolescent fraternity or locker room fascination with the male homoeroticism that they provide one another. Freddie and the other two may even have occasional sex with women—although there is no evidence of it in this film—but their true joy, it is apparent, is in their male comradery.

      Later on, of course, we perceive Freddie to be Ann’s secret “lover,” although there is no evidence that their relationship consists of anything other than heavy flirtation, and indeed, when Ann shows up late in the film to Diana’s farewell party drunk, Freddie quickly jumps ship, escaping the house so as not to have to witness Ann’s public declaration that she believes her husband is secretly having an affair with Diana.

      In fact, Ben has just admitted to Diana that he still loves her and that he has made a terrible mistake in marrying Ann. But this is the first the two have encountered each other, and even then, although they declare their love for one another, Diana leaves on her voyage without seeing Ben again.

      Finally, despite the claim of Our Dancing Daughters presenting an up-to-date picture of youth, the film closes as an old-fashioned revenge drama as Ben and his friends attempt to take the now totally plastered Ann home. She stands at the top of staircase mocking the cleaning woman below for not having beautiful daughters like herself who might save them from working. Refusing the help of others, she begins like Norma Desmond to descend the staircase, tripping and falling to her death, permitting Ben and Diana to reunite upon return from overseas two years later.

      As a final note, I’ll add that I cannot comprehend what Diana truly sees in the boring dunce Ben or what Bea finds so wonderful about a husband who is constantly forgiving her for having had pre-marital sex. Actually, they should turn their intense female friendship into something a little more adventuresome. But as I begin this essay saying, this film pretends to be a lot of things it isn’t, and such behavior is not permitted for “our dancing daughters.”

 

Los Angeles, September 12, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (September 2023).

Titles Index A-N

https://myqueercinema.blogspot.com/2023/12/former-index-to-world-cinema-review.html Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [F...