queer-coding and gay subtext have always been a part of queer cinema whether as a result of censorship or not.
analysing and headcanoning characters we see on screen as queer is very personal to queer audience, because representation does matter in a lot of cases.
FROM “bury the gays”, gays as miserable depressed failures or toxic murderous villians to be looked down upon, TO “we support gay rights AND gay wrongs”, “be gay do crime”, “toxic codependent doomed yuri” as a celebration, we’ve come a long way. ppl had worked hard to make wholesome queer stories to appear on screens, now we are making sure queer relationships shouldn’t necessarily be wholesome to be respected. it’s just like reclaiming “queer” which was used as a slur. like cishets, queerness should be ubiquitous in all kinds of media :)
從本紀錄片完成的九十年代中期到現在，将近三十年過去了，銀幕上的酷兒形象也是變了更多呢。在經曆了相對自由百花齊放的2010s，現在全球右轉保守主義擡頭，fandom中purity culture也越來越流行…可能會有更多對酷兒創作不明說的條框。雖然角色可以光明正大貼上酷兒标簽，但（西方）觀衆對酷兒角色的要求也會更多：呈現sex scenes會被說在sexualise/fetishise性少數，人物性格toxic或者落入stereotypes裡會被說是bad representation，不明确角色間的浪漫關系會被質疑有queerbaiting嫌疑。不管怎樣還是希望影視藝術是自由表達的，在尊重的基礎上能有更多diversity。除了heartstopper那種作品，我們也很需要problematic queers. after all we are all just human beings.
