Queer: Guadagnino weedsweeds outout thethe sheepsheep withwith newnew surrealistsurrealist moviemovie

Luca Guadagnino’s adaptation of William S. Burroughs’ novel Queer caused many to stumble out of the cinema feeling bewildered and repulsed. Suddenly, self-proclaimed Guadagnino fanatics recoil in disgust and chastise the age gap between the main characters. One cannot help but wonder whether this Puritan outrage stemmed from society’s repressed ageist notions. In turn, the idea questions what right Daniel Craig’s wispy grey hair and lived-in face had to share frames with fresh-faced blond Drew Starkey.

The release of Call Me By Your Name in 2017 gave rise to think pieces that defended the sordid age gap between 17-year-old Elio (Timothée Chalamet) and 24-year-old Oliver (Armie Hammer). Tragically, this clemency seems unlikely for Guadagnino this time, which is truly an injustice.

Between the 16th Century and the late 19th Century, ‘queer’ referred to something eccentric or strange. Afterwards, it was maliciously co-opted as a slur by bigots to call those part of the LGBTQ community. The neoteric stride towards reclaiming the slur and its loaded history has left contemporary watchers incapable of seeing beyond their tired eyes, which are still weeping.

Everyone is Queer

It is unclear whether watchers knew the film was adapted from a book written by a gay man in the ’50s. Regardless of his controversial politics, Burroughs stood at the forefront of the Beat Generation. Beatniks staunchly denounced heteronormativity whilst advocating for liberation. Much of the work from this generation is characterised by unstructured composition and a raw portrayal of the human condition. This generation sought purification from the misery of modern society after WWII and turned to hedonism to withdraw and escape.

The film opens with Sinéad O’Connor’s breathy rendition of Nirvana’s “All Apologies”; it plays throughout the trailer. Guadagnino handed us the denouement on a silver platter before he even released the movie.

Queer (referring to both the book and film from here on) does not have a storyline per se. Some describe the Beat Writer’s work as plotless and erratic – the inane ramblings of a junky with an over-inflated sense of self lacking in purpose and wit. Really, his oeuvre assumes the role of a magnifying glass.

In Queer, the audience undergoes a perilous and visceral unearthing of what it means to feel alien. This is where the title’s modern connotations leave Guadagnino and viewers shortchanged. It may feature two men in a relationship and may be aptly named after the time it was written. And although many queer people experience alienation as a result of their identity, Queer pokes and prods at the boulder that is loneliness – a condition which discriminates no one.

Guadagnino examines the subconscious

In Mexico, a strung-out William Lee (Daniel Craig) muses intently over cockfighting on a street corner until Eugene Allerton (played by Starkey) skirts by. His large glasses and poreless skin were crowned with a glistening combover, and no hair or thread was out of place. Aloof, he glanced at Lee only just before gliding away. The audience is swept along into Lee’s infatuation with Allerton and whisked away on a mind-bending trip.

Guadagnino toys with superimposition to relay Lee’s subconscious. In a movie theatre with Allerton, we see Lee grapple with decorum and desire. Both men sat stiffly to attention as if held up by a back brace, perhaps a remnant of their army days. However, a superimposed scene of languished hands reaches for Allerton. Guadagnino forces us to assume his perspective, and, like the woozy, booze-filled character, we watch in a constant state of unease and confusion.

The majority of the time spent with the two characters has less to do with plot development and more to do with dispelling our reserve for Lee. Allerton’s cool and distant character sometimes appears closed off. He would shrug Lee’s hand off his shoulder when walking or have his hands tucked into his trouser pockets. There were scenes where he felt he wanted to create as much physical distance between himself and Lee as possible. This behaviour foils Lee, who is constantly fumbling and stumbling over the weight of his feelings for the young photographer.

Pathetic, desperate, cringy, agonising. All words that fit Lee’s actions in one scene or another. But Guadagnino’s intention is not for us to wince at the exiled (self-inflicted or not) expatriate. After all, we have no idea what Allerton is really thinking.

Metaphysics and the human condition

Lee is not totally deluded. It is almost Pavlovian how Allerton whisks Lee into a whirlwind of romance before pulling away into another woman’s arms in a waltz. In 2025, this would be called breadcrumbing. The film slowly progresses into absurdism as the pair travel South America to find ayahuasca. Lee read about its telepathic properties once and has been fixated ever since. This fixation forms the crux of the film and remarks on the foibles of the human condition.

It might seem like the direction takes a lazy, whacky, nonsensical turn. The jungle Lee and Eugene enter is clearly a studio with five trees at best. They find the researcher they had been hunting down who has taken so much ayahuasca she comically takes on the role of a shaman brass-necked. None of these directorial decisions were trivial or offhand.

Guadagnino has loved this book since he was a teenager. He even wrote a screenplay back then, only to approach screenwriter Justin Kuritzkes with the idea of collaborating in 2022. In fact, the transcendental dimension, which dominates the final portion, was present the entire time. It began in Mexico, Lee’s home away from home, and intensified once they started their travels in South America.

Guadagnino channels the unsettling quality of David Lynch and David Cronenberg’s majestic and unnerving disembodied cinema to deliver a torturous and vulnerable picture of human desire. This was a film too avant-garde for the casual Guadagnino watchers or the generation that has been spoon-fed consciousness. The 9-minute standing ovation is only a glimpse of the reverence this masterpiece will hold in the coming years.

Feature image credit: Courtesy of A24.