![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Psycho (1960) (YouTube)
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock and based on a novel of the same name by Robert Bloch.
I'm preeeetty sure that most ppl have either watched this movie or know abt it. JUST IN CASE, here's the non-spoiler premise:
Marion Crane (played by Janet Leigh) is a woman who is in love and eager to marry her boyfriend Sam Loomis (played by John Gavin.) Unfortch, though, Sam's financial situation isn't great due to debts connected to his late father AND alimony payments to his ex-wife. Despite wanting to get married to Marion, Sam's not down to put her in a situation where they'd both be struggling to make ends meet. After an afternoon tryst, Marion and Sam have a mild argument.
By chance, later that day, Marion's employer gives her $40k to deposit in the bank.She gives into the temptation of stealing the money and driving over to the city Sam lives at. Maybe now they'll have a chance at a better life together.
All the driving tires her. She pulls over on the side of the road. The next morning, a cop wakes her up. He warns her to not do that again. As she heads to Sam's, a sudden heavy rain leads her to stop at the Bates Motel…
I mean, what is there to say abt this movie that no one has ever said before? This is one of the most popular and well-known movies of all time. Even if someone has never watched it (which I'm not saying is impossible, but IDK how ppl wouldn't have sit thru it at least once?), the movie is so deeply entrenched in popular culture that some key pieces of it (Norman Bates, the soundtrack, certain scenes) will be familiar in some shape or form. That's how big this movie is.
Still, it's not one of my fave Hitchcock movies? My guess is cuz it lacks the balance between the suspense and the humor that tends to pepper a lot of his films. The tension builds up from the start and never really stops. There aren't a lot of moments of release, no soft landing for viewers.
THAT SAID, I recognize the genius that's on display here. Also, everything from the plot, the direction, the cinematography, the acting, and the casting is PERFECTION.
This was the first movie I ever watched Janet Leigh in and WOW! She's so good at conveying Marion's frustration. She's TIRED of having to go thru life snatching brief moments of true happiness with Sam. Even more interesting is that she's not a terrible person either. Leigh brings out a vulnerability that makes her story arc that much poignant.
I also liked Martin Balsam as Arbogast (the P.I.). He's a low-key, average dude who is v. friendly. Underneath that, he's got a skillset (especially when it comes to interviewing ppl) to the point that he's able to corner folks and catch their lies super quickly.
Anthony Perkins is fantastic as Norman Bates. IIRC, at this point in his career, Perkins was known for romantic/cute roles. And so he was going against his public persona. However, he was soooo good that it typecasted him for the rest of his life. I'm not sure he was able to move past it before he died. I do know he acted in the subsequent sequels (and even directed Psycho III), but I wonder how his career would've gone had he had the chance to work in other roles.
Do I have any criticisms?
None, actually.
Do I recommend it?
YES! It's deffo worth watching. Prior to this weekend, I think it'd been abt 8-10 yrs ago since the last time I did and I still got super immersed. FTR, this movie happens to be available for free on YouTube as of right now. It's available for renting everywhere and it does tend to air on TV every so often. I'm giving this one a 4.6 out of 5.
Queerness level
It's…a little complicated.
OTOH, I'd say that there's nothing IN the movie that would register to viewers as queer. OTOH, Anthony Perkins did have a few long term relationships with men throughout his life. Including actors such as Tab Hunter. That said, he was also married at times and had kids. Some people have stated that he was gay, others have said he was bisexual. In truth, we'll never know. Maybe he didn't believe in labels. AFAIK, he never came out, but (again) his M/M relationships are well-documented.
Fun fact: One of his two sons is Oz Perkins (an actor-director.) I know him from Legally Blonde where he played David, the geeky dude that Elle Woods was nice to. He wore a heavy blue parka? Before I knew of his parentage, I did think he looked a lot like Anthony Perkins. Go figure!
Psycho (1998) (YouTube)
Directed by Gus Van Sant and based on Robert Bloch's novel & Joseph Stefano's script (of the 1960 movie).
*Deep sigh*
The movie is a shot-by-shot remake of the 1960 film. It's literally the same plot and dialogue.
I distinctly remember going to the theater the weekend it premiered back in 1998. Wasn't super impressed back then. Hadn't watched it until this past weekend and my opinion hasn't improved, hahahah.
Although I don't think anyone deserves the title of MVP, I do have to tip my hat to William H. Macy as Arbogast. He's not as good as Martin Balsam was in 1960, but he did the everyday, plain vibe that the character needed.
One thing I liked was the sound editing. There are moments during which Marion's daydreaming how some people are reacting to her theft and the voices started to get distorted and echo-y until it all overlapped in a cool way.
Do I have any criticisms?
I've got A TON! XD
Starting with the only reason why this movie was made was just cuz Gus Van Sant could do it. Well, and he'd also heard that Universal was ready to remake it, so he sneaked in that deal. But there's NO improvement in the final movie. It doesn't even get to a tenth of the level of the original version. Mind you, there have been many movies with 2 or more remakes and they've been well-received because they've brought up their own spark. Frex, all of the Jane Austen adaptations, the A Star is Born films, the Evil Dead reboots, etc. All of them do tend to bring some new flavor that ppl have gravitated to.
What makes this an interesting failure (rest assured, this movie is TERRIBLE) is that it could've been good.
Gus Van Sant (a director whose body of work I've mostly enjoyed) is pretty solid but I can't see his work in this film.
The cast is hella talented too…but EVERYONE IS MISCAST.
Even worse, they're all in different movies. Anne Heche is in a quirky comedy; Julianne Moore is the angry lesbian that's fighting against the system; Vince Vaughn and William H. Macy are in a kind of noir parody; Viggo Mortensen is in a kinda 1970s cowboy porno? Like, some of his costuming is odd in how flashy it is given that it's meant to be a regular dude's wardrobe in the late 1990s.
I…truly don't know WHAT Viggo Mortensen was trying to do with Sam. He has a v. thick Southern accent AND also mumbles some of his dialogue which… CHOICES. His version of Sam appears to be more himbo than anything else? And there are also weird moments where he keeps coming onto Lila EVEN THOUGH HIS GF IS MISSING and yet he doesn't seem anywhere near as worried as John Galvin appeared to be in the 1960s movie.
Anne Heche is so bad as Marion, y'all. She's peppy and sassy in a way that makes her character react cutely at the weirdest times.
Case in poin: there's a scene w/o dialogue in the 1960 movie where Janet Leigh (as Marion) keeps projecting her character's inner conflict even after she's stolen the money. She's able to convey so much with her facial expressions: her worries and anxieties, trying to figure out if it's too late while also stubbornly sticking to her plan, etc. Even though she's committing a crime, Leigh's Marion does elicit sympathy.
Meanwhile, Heche (in the same scene) tries to present the same kind of reactions. But she doesn't look THAT concerned abt what she's doing. There's NO ambivalence in her movements. On top of that, she moves around the scene in a kind of quiet celebration? It's v. odd.
Another big disappointment has to do with Vince Vaughn. At this point in his career, he'd broken out of indie movies and was starting to snag bigger roles across different genres. I get why he'd have appealed to the producers of this movie…up to a point. Thing is he's not creepy enough to make anyone (let alone viewers) feel unsettled. And he lacks the awkwardness that he'd need to convince folks of Norman Bates' "innocence". His delivery of some important monologues was flat.
My final gripe is a little bit petty, but whatevs. This movie IS set in 1998. HOWEVAH, everything from costumes to the set decorations screams late 1960s aesthetics. It was v. disorienting to see Marion wearing a really bright, almost neon orange A-line dress that has gold and green leaf details and her Twiggy-esque mod haircut…driving a 1990s Volvo.
Differences between the 1960 and 1998 versions
Please note that this will be the only section with FULL SPOILERS FOR BOTH FILMS, so consider y'all forewarned.
* The opening shot
1960 - Marion and Sam are already getting dressed up. The room they've rented is plain.
1998 - They're in bed post-coitus. Sam's COMPLETELY NAKED--which viewers know cuz there are a few shots of Viggo Mortensen's butt. This turns awkward at the end of the scene when Marion (just like in the 1960 version) tells him they can't leave together because she's "already late and you (Sam) are missing your shoes". The joke does not land.
The room is v. seedy, gives a "by-the-hour" kinda run down motel.
* The office scene
1998 - The house buyer (who, again, is a sleazy oil magnate of sorts) and Marion have a few more lines that were part of the original 1960 version (but were cut for ? reasons). The dialogue is pretty off-color, but it doesn't add anything to the story.
* The amount of money Marion stole
1960 - It's 40k.
1998 - It's 400k (they adjusted it for inflation.)
In 2025, it'd be around $426k.
* The Voyeur scene
1960 - After Marion goes to her room, Norman take a painting off the wall, looks at Marion getting undressed thru a peephole, and then replaces the painting back before heading to his house.
1998 - Same thing EXCEPT there are close-ups of his eye and profile. The sound is isolated and the volume's raised to make it v. clear that he's masturbating to completion. O___o.
* Violence during the murders
1960 - A lot of it is auditory and fast cuts. One person is shown with a slash across their face.
1998 - There are shots of the wounds. During Marion's death scene, there's a butt shut that's kinda :|
Also, when the murders occur, there are weird inserts of things that have nothing to do with what's going onscreen which include a cloudy & thunderous sky, a bird of pray taking off, and a woman reclining while looking at the camera. IHNI what this is other than bad artsy shit.
* The ending
1960 - LIla finds Mrs. Bates in a plain root cellar. Norman attacks LIla but is overpowered by Sam.
1998- The root cellar has been expanded until there's a second room that contains a huge glass birdcare filled with all kinds of birds. Norman attacks Lila and is momentarily subdued by Sam. He struggles while trying to pick up a big knife. Just as he breaks free, LIla runs up to him and gives him a hard kick with her thick-soled boot.
IDEK what to say abt that last thing, LOLsob. It was so fucking TACKY!
Do I recommend it?
No! It's an officially BAD movie. It's available for free on YT, but it'll be a WASTE OF TIME. Go watch the original instead. I'm giving it a 0.10 out 5 and that's only cuz of the sound editing.
Queerness level
Let's go with messy. *nervous laughter* These two thing are gonna sound wild to those who are 30 and under. Hell, it sounds unreal to me in 2025 where there's more representation in the media.
For starters, this movie came out a year into Anne Heche's 3-year relationship with Ellen DeGeneres. They were one of the v., v. few mega WLW celeb couples at the time (off the top of my head, the only other I can think of is Melissa Ethridge and Julie Cypher.) My impression of the press at the time was more on Heche recreating the role that Leigh had done instead of Heche being gal pals with DeGeneres. OBVIOUSLY, the tabloids did printed articles abt them and all, but I do think that Universal's PR team kept a lid on the reality that Heche was in a committed relationship with DeGeneres.
And then, there's Julianne Moore as Lila
🙄🙄🙄
OK, so, in the 1960s movie, Lila is somewhat more passive and the way Vera Miles plays her is LIla having a simpatico with Sam. In the sequels it's even implied that they eventually got married.
For reasons I still don't understand in 2025, Julianne Moore's Lila was subtextually a lesbian. She was the only woman wearing pants in the movie, wore nothing but shirts with funky prints OR a t-shirt and a hoodie, jeans, thick boots, and had a wallet chain. Oh, and instead of a purse, she had a leather backpack. She was also obsessed with her yellow walkman*. In addition, unlike the rest of the women in the movie, she appears to wear no make-up or style her hair in any specific way. There's nothing femme abt her
* Re the walkman: she's got the headphones wrapped around her neck for abt 50% of her scenes. There's even one moment when she's going to talk to a deputy sheriff alongside Sam and, just as they're leaving, she stops and says something like 'wait! Let me grab my walkman." She's then shown at the sheriff's living room alongside Sam with them damn yellow headphones hanging on her neck. I just... OKAY, THEN! laksjdflkasjdfkl
At NO point in the movie does the character say anything that would imply she's a lesbian/queer/bi nor are there scenes of her with other women she might be romantically and/or sexually attracted to.
BUT she does constantly rebuff Sam's attempts at flirting with her (including one random moment when he kisses her cheek and she gives him a Muppet Face) or when she shrugs off his hug while trying to 'pass' as a married couple.
All that to say that, PER WHAT I REMEMBER, Julianne Moore was the actor who appeared in all of the lesbian and queer media of the time. There were many printed interviews where she repeated how her version of Lila was that of "soft butch lesbian". And that just rubbed at me the wrongest of ways back in 1998 and still does today.
Mainly cuz Van Sant and co chose to keep everything buried so deep that Moore ends up coming across as uncomfortable. Down to the way she walks: it's meant to be purposeful, but I got the impression her shoes were a size or two too big. Most of the time, it looked like she was trying to keep her hips from wiggling; maybe her center of gravity was askew. Her version of Lila is combative for no reason other than the director told her to behave that way. She won't be pushed around and will get in ppl's faces in order to make her point…and yet she'll wink at Norman and give him a flirty smile cuz ????
It was true queerbaiting with ZERO payoff.
Especially since this movie came out the same year as Gia and High Art. Meanwhile, Bound, All Over Me, The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love, and Go Fish had dropped in earlier years. Plus all of the indie movies that you had to search for online or via catalogues.
I can only imagine all of the lesbians and other queer women who went to the theater in hopes to see Moore be queer only to end up being disappointed abt it.
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock and based on a novel of the same name by Robert Bloch.
I'm preeeetty sure that most ppl have either watched this movie or know abt it. JUST IN CASE, here's the non-spoiler premise:
Marion Crane (played by Janet Leigh) is a woman who is in love and eager to marry her boyfriend Sam Loomis (played by John Gavin.) Unfortch, though, Sam's financial situation isn't great due to debts connected to his late father AND alimony payments to his ex-wife. Despite wanting to get married to Marion, Sam's not down to put her in a situation where they'd both be struggling to make ends meet. After an afternoon tryst, Marion and Sam have a mild argument.
By chance, later that day, Marion's employer gives her $40k to deposit in the bank.She gives into the temptation of stealing the money and driving over to the city Sam lives at. Maybe now they'll have a chance at a better life together.
All the driving tires her. She pulls over on the side of the road. The next morning, a cop wakes her up. He warns her to not do that again. As she heads to Sam's, a sudden heavy rain leads her to stop at the Bates Motel…
I mean, what is there to say abt this movie that no one has ever said before? This is one of the most popular and well-known movies of all time. Even if someone has never watched it (which I'm not saying is impossible, but IDK how ppl wouldn't have sit thru it at least once?), the movie is so deeply entrenched in popular culture that some key pieces of it (Norman Bates, the soundtrack, certain scenes) will be familiar in some shape or form. That's how big this movie is.
Still, it's not one of my fave Hitchcock movies? My guess is cuz it lacks the balance between the suspense and the humor that tends to pepper a lot of his films. The tension builds up from the start and never really stops. There aren't a lot of moments of release, no soft landing for viewers.
THAT SAID, I recognize the genius that's on display here. Also, everything from the plot, the direction, the cinematography, the acting, and the casting is PERFECTION.
This was the first movie I ever watched Janet Leigh in and WOW! She's so good at conveying Marion's frustration. She's TIRED of having to go thru life snatching brief moments of true happiness with Sam. Even more interesting is that she's not a terrible person either. Leigh brings out a vulnerability that makes her story arc that much poignant.
I also liked Martin Balsam as Arbogast (the P.I.). He's a low-key, average dude who is v. friendly. Underneath that, he's got a skillset (especially when it comes to interviewing ppl) to the point that he's able to corner folks and catch their lies super quickly.
Anthony Perkins is fantastic as Norman Bates. IIRC, at this point in his career, Perkins was known for romantic/cute roles. And so he was going against his public persona. However, he was soooo good that it typecasted him for the rest of his life. I'm not sure he was able to move past it before he died. I do know he acted in the subsequent sequels (and even directed Psycho III), but I wonder how his career would've gone had he had the chance to work in other roles.
Do I have any criticisms?
None, actually.
Do I recommend it?
YES! It's deffo worth watching. Prior to this weekend, I think it'd been abt 8-10 yrs ago since the last time I did and I still got super immersed. FTR, this movie happens to be available for free on YouTube as of right now. It's available for renting everywhere and it does tend to air on TV every so often. I'm giving this one a 4.6 out of 5.
Queerness level
It's…a little complicated.
OTOH, I'd say that there's nothing IN the movie that would register to viewers as queer. OTOH, Anthony Perkins did have a few long term relationships with men throughout his life. Including actors such as Tab Hunter. That said, he was also married at times and had kids. Some people have stated that he was gay, others have said he was bisexual. In truth, we'll never know. Maybe he didn't believe in labels. AFAIK, he never came out, but (again) his M/M relationships are well-documented.
Fun fact: One of his two sons is Oz Perkins (an actor-director.) I know him from Legally Blonde where he played David, the geeky dude that Elle Woods was nice to. He wore a heavy blue parka? Before I knew of his parentage, I did think he looked a lot like Anthony Perkins. Go figure!
Psycho (1998) (YouTube)
Directed by Gus Van Sant and based on Robert Bloch's novel & Joseph Stefano's script (of the 1960 movie).
*Deep sigh*
The movie is a shot-by-shot remake of the 1960 film. It's literally the same plot and dialogue.
I distinctly remember going to the theater the weekend it premiered back in 1998. Wasn't super impressed back then. Hadn't watched it until this past weekend and my opinion hasn't improved, hahahah.
Although I don't think anyone deserves the title of MVP, I do have to tip my hat to William H. Macy as Arbogast. He's not as good as Martin Balsam was in 1960, but he did the everyday, plain vibe that the character needed.
One thing I liked was the sound editing. There are moments during which Marion's daydreaming how some people are reacting to her theft and the voices started to get distorted and echo-y until it all overlapped in a cool way.
Do I have any criticisms?
I've got A TON! XD
Starting with the only reason why this movie was made was just cuz Gus Van Sant could do it. Well, and he'd also heard that Universal was ready to remake it, so he sneaked in that deal. But there's NO improvement in the final movie. It doesn't even get to a tenth of the level of the original version. Mind you, there have been many movies with 2 or more remakes and they've been well-received because they've brought up their own spark. Frex, all of the Jane Austen adaptations, the A Star is Born films, the Evil Dead reboots, etc. All of them do tend to bring some new flavor that ppl have gravitated to.
What makes this an interesting failure (rest assured, this movie is TERRIBLE) is that it could've been good.
Gus Van Sant (a director whose body of work I've mostly enjoyed) is pretty solid but I can't see his work in this film.
The cast is hella talented too…but EVERYONE IS MISCAST.
Even worse, they're all in different movies. Anne Heche is in a quirky comedy; Julianne Moore is the angry lesbian that's fighting against the system; Vince Vaughn and William H. Macy are in a kind of noir parody; Viggo Mortensen is in a kinda 1970s cowboy porno? Like, some of his costuming is odd in how flashy it is given that it's meant to be a regular dude's wardrobe in the late 1990s.
I…truly don't know WHAT Viggo Mortensen was trying to do with Sam. He has a v. thick Southern accent AND also mumbles some of his dialogue which… CHOICES. His version of Sam appears to be more himbo than anything else? And there are also weird moments where he keeps coming onto Lila EVEN THOUGH HIS GF IS MISSING and yet he doesn't seem anywhere near as worried as John Galvin appeared to be in the 1960s movie.
Anne Heche is so bad as Marion, y'all. She's peppy and sassy in a way that makes her character react cutely at the weirdest times.
Case in poin: there's a scene w/o dialogue in the 1960 movie where Janet Leigh (as Marion) keeps projecting her character's inner conflict even after she's stolen the money. She's able to convey so much with her facial expressions: her worries and anxieties, trying to figure out if it's too late while also stubbornly sticking to her plan, etc. Even though she's committing a crime, Leigh's Marion does elicit sympathy.
Meanwhile, Heche (in the same scene) tries to present the same kind of reactions. But she doesn't look THAT concerned abt what she's doing. There's NO ambivalence in her movements. On top of that, she moves around the scene in a kind of quiet celebration? It's v. odd.
Another big disappointment has to do with Vince Vaughn. At this point in his career, he'd broken out of indie movies and was starting to snag bigger roles across different genres. I get why he'd have appealed to the producers of this movie…up to a point. Thing is he's not creepy enough to make anyone (let alone viewers) feel unsettled. And he lacks the awkwardness that he'd need to convince folks of Norman Bates' "innocence". His delivery of some important monologues was flat.
My final gripe is a little bit petty, but whatevs. This movie IS set in 1998. HOWEVAH, everything from costumes to the set decorations screams late 1960s aesthetics. It was v. disorienting to see Marion wearing a really bright, almost neon orange A-line dress that has gold and green leaf details and her Twiggy-esque mod haircut…driving a 1990s Volvo.
Differences between the 1960 and 1998 versions
Please note that this will be the only section with FULL SPOILERS FOR BOTH FILMS, so consider y'all forewarned.
Spoilers begin here
* The opening shot
1960 - Marion and Sam are already getting dressed up. The room they've rented is plain.
1998 - They're in bed post-coitus. Sam's COMPLETELY NAKED--which viewers know cuz there are a few shots of Viggo Mortensen's butt. This turns awkward at the end of the scene when Marion (just like in the 1960 version) tells him they can't leave together because she's "already late and you (Sam) are missing your shoes". The joke does not land.
The room is v. seedy, gives a "by-the-hour" kinda run down motel.
* The office scene
1998 - The house buyer (who, again, is a sleazy oil magnate of sorts) and Marion have a few more lines that were part of the original 1960 version (but were cut for ? reasons). The dialogue is pretty off-color, but it doesn't add anything to the story.
* The amount of money Marion stole
1960 - It's 40k.
1998 - It's 400k (they adjusted it for inflation.)
In 2025, it'd be around $426k.
* The Voyeur scene
1960 - After Marion goes to her room, Norman take a painting off the wall, looks at Marion getting undressed thru a peephole, and then replaces the painting back before heading to his house.
1998 - Same thing EXCEPT there are close-ups of his eye and profile. The sound is isolated and the volume's raised to make it v. clear that he's masturbating to completion. O___o.
* Violence during the murders
1960 - A lot of it is auditory and fast cuts. One person is shown with a slash across their face.
1998 - There are shots of the wounds. During Marion's death scene, there's a butt shut that's kinda :|
Also, when the murders occur, there are weird inserts of things that have nothing to do with what's going onscreen which include a cloudy & thunderous sky, a bird of pray taking off, and a woman reclining while looking at the camera. IHNI what this is other than bad artsy shit.
* The ending
1960 - LIla finds Mrs. Bates in a plain root cellar. Norman attacks LIla but is overpowered by Sam.
1998- The root cellar has been expanded until there's a second room that contains a huge glass birdcare filled with all kinds of birds. Norman attacks Lila and is momentarily subdued by Sam. He struggles while trying to pick up a big knife. Just as he breaks free, LIla runs up to him and gives him a hard kick with her thick-soled boot.
IDEK what to say abt that last thing, LOLsob. It was so fucking TACKY!
Do I recommend it?
No! It's an officially BAD movie. It's available for free on YT, but it'll be a WASTE OF TIME. Go watch the original instead. I'm giving it a 0.10 out 5 and that's only cuz of the sound editing.
Queerness level
Let's go with messy. *nervous laughter* These two thing are gonna sound wild to those who are 30 and under. Hell, it sounds unreal to me in 2025 where there's more representation in the media.
For starters, this movie came out a year into Anne Heche's 3-year relationship with Ellen DeGeneres. They were one of the v., v. few mega WLW celeb couples at the time (off the top of my head, the only other I can think of is Melissa Ethridge and Julie Cypher.) My impression of the press at the time was more on Heche recreating the role that Leigh had done instead of Heche being gal pals with DeGeneres. OBVIOUSLY, the tabloids did printed articles abt them and all, but I do think that Universal's PR team kept a lid on the reality that Heche was in a committed relationship with DeGeneres.
And then, there's Julianne Moore as Lila
🙄🙄🙄
OK, so, in the 1960s movie, Lila is somewhat more passive and the way Vera Miles plays her is LIla having a simpatico with Sam. In the sequels it's even implied that they eventually got married.
For reasons I still don't understand in 2025, Julianne Moore's Lila was subtextually a lesbian. She was the only woman wearing pants in the movie, wore nothing but shirts with funky prints OR a t-shirt and a hoodie, jeans, thick boots, and had a wallet chain. Oh, and instead of a purse, she had a leather backpack. She was also obsessed with her yellow walkman*. In addition, unlike the rest of the women in the movie, she appears to wear no make-up or style her hair in any specific way. There's nothing femme abt her
* Re the walkman: she's got the headphones wrapped around her neck for abt 50% of her scenes. There's even one moment when she's going to talk to a deputy sheriff alongside Sam and, just as they're leaving, she stops and says something like 'wait! Let me grab my walkman." She's then shown at the sheriff's living room alongside Sam with them damn yellow headphones hanging on her neck. I just... OKAY, THEN! laksjdflkasjdfkl
At NO point in the movie does the character say anything that would imply she's a lesbian/queer/bi nor are there scenes of her with other women she might be romantically and/or sexually attracted to.
BUT she does constantly rebuff Sam's attempts at flirting with her (including one random moment when he kisses her cheek and she gives him a Muppet Face) or when she shrugs off his hug while trying to 'pass' as a married couple.
All that to say that, PER WHAT I REMEMBER, Julianne Moore was the actor who appeared in all of the lesbian and queer media of the time. There were many printed interviews where she repeated how her version of Lila was that of "soft butch lesbian". And that just rubbed at me the wrongest of ways back in 1998 and still does today.
Mainly cuz Van Sant and co chose to keep everything buried so deep that Moore ends up coming across as uncomfortable. Down to the way she walks: it's meant to be purposeful, but I got the impression her shoes were a size or two too big. Most of the time, it looked like she was trying to keep her hips from wiggling; maybe her center of gravity was askew. Her version of Lila is combative for no reason other than the director told her to behave that way. She won't be pushed around and will get in ppl's faces in order to make her point…and yet she'll wink at Norman and give him a flirty smile cuz ????
It was true queerbaiting with ZERO payoff.
Especially since this movie came out the same year as Gia and High Art. Meanwhile, Bound, All Over Me, The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love, and Go Fish had dropped in earlier years. Plus all of the indie movies that you had to search for online or via catalogues.
I can only imagine all of the lesbians and other queer women who went to the theater in hopes to see Moore be queer only to end up being disappointed abt it.
