Abstract

In the early nineties, an abundance of independent films emerged which centred on queer
characters and themes. These radical films would first come to be recognised by B. Ruby Rich; a
theorist who described the moment as a New Queer Cinema in a Sight & Sound article from
September 1992. This short dissertation chronicles the movements origins in a brief explanation
of Queer theory, leading up to Richs article. Based upon my research, I propose a list of eleven
tenets in order to classify the films, which are referred to throughout this paper. In order to
investigate how the movement tenets can be applied, I undertake an in-depth analysis of The
Living End (1992), the breakthrough feature by guerrilla filmmaker, Gregg Araki. Referencing
Mills 1997 essay on the film, I explore the running narrative of the film and how it ties into the
road movie canon. The films representation of various minority groups (such as homosexuals
and women) is further examined. Unlike other essays on New Queer Cinema, the study of
clothes as a significantly important identity trait is documented upon in this paper. By comparing
the feature to other New Queer Cinema titles, as well as various mainstream Hollywood movies
dealing with AIDS, death and queer characters in the nineties, The Living Ends radical themes
are closely analysed. With queer perspectives on love, violence, abjection, nihilism, life and
death, Arakis film acts as the perfect New Queer Cinema case study.



Gregg Arakis The Living End;
Love, Violence and AIDS within the New Queer Cinema Narrative

Queer theory emerged in the early nineties at the height of the AIDS crisis visibility. Expanding
upon Gender Studies and LGBT studies, Queer theory was heavily influenced by the writings of
Michel Foucault (1976), Judith Butler (1990) and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1991). The
reclaimed word queer, as used within queer theory, is a critique of identity, rather than an
identity in itself. This critique is predominately based on performativity and its role in forming
identity as well as maintaining it. Gender and sexuality are examined in queer theory as either
natural states or socially-constructed ones. How queer identities change, or resist change, in
relation to heteronormativity is also examined. In his analysis of Foucaults writings, David
Halperin (1997: p.62) states;
Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.
There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an
essence. Queer then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis--vis the
normative.
Many queer theorists argued that gender-sexual labels (including homosexual and heterosexual)
were socially constructed and were subject to change along with cultural attitudes. Queer theorist
Annemarie Jagose (1996: p.3) clarifies that;
Queer theorys debunking of stable sexes, genders and sexualities develops out of a
specifically lesbian and gay reworking of the poststructuralist figuring of identity as a
constellation of multiple and unstable conditions.
Queer artists have also expanded upon queer theory to include its principal philosophies into
their work. Among them were openly-gay filmmakers Todd Haynes and Jennie Livingston, who
adapted queerness to the cinema screen. The term, New Queer Cinema, was coined by writer
B. Ruby Rich in a September 1992 article for the Sight & Sound magazine after the success of
Haynes Poison (1991) and Livingstons Paris Is Burning (1990) at the previous years
Sundance Film Festival.
1
In her ground-breaking article, she noted these two Sundance hits as
well as several other films in this queer new wave were the first to unashamedly represent
unconventional sexualities, and so the film movement was born. Rich (1992: p.32) states;
There are traces in all of [these films] of appropriation and pastiche, irony, as well as a
reworking of history with social constructionism very much in mind. Definitely breaking
with older humanist approaches and the films and tapes that accompanied identity
politics, these works are irrelevant, energetic, alternatively minimalist and excessive.
Above all, theyre full of pleasure.
Over a decade since Richs article, Michele Aarons homonymously-titled New Queer Cinema:
A Critical Introduction was published in 2004, The publication acts as a valuable reference in
summarising the cinematic movements heyday. Following an introduction to the movement by
Aaron, as well as re-print of Richs article, Aaron enlists the aid of a host of other queer film
theorists (including Glyn Davis, Julianne Pidduck and Harry M. Benshoff) to define New Queer
Cinema, as well as educate the reader on the unique characteristics of its filmmakers and its
spectators. What is most rewarding about the book is how writer, Monica B. Pearl, draws a direct
link between New Queer Cinemas emergence in the early nineties and the AIDS pandemic
which had decimated the gay male population in the US during the previous decade.

1
Poison earned the Grand Jury Prize (Drama) 1991, while Paris Is Burning earned the Grand Jury Prize
(Documentary) 1991 at the festival.
The perspectives of the authors within the book were undeniably significant in my study for this
dissertation. The films of New Queer Cinema often hold a typical framework in order to tie them
to the movement and I sought to uncover this framework. Based on my research; I would
propose a list of eleven New Queer Cinema tenets (Figure 1.1). All of these guidelines are not
mandatory for each title, but are necessary for categorization.

Figure 1.1 Eleven Tenets of New Queer Cinema (NQC), based upon my research. This table will be referred back to through
this dissertation in the footnotes section.

Queer filmmaker Gregg Araki exploded onto the film scene back in 1992 with The Living End.
Originally mentioned in Richs seminal article, the feature is one of New Queer Cinemas
greatest achievements. His previous efforts, Three Bewildered People In The Night (1987) and
Long Weekend (O Despair) (1989), were both made for $5,000 each but proved little success
financially. With some borrowed equipment and a higher, but still modest, budget of $20,000,
Araki made The Living End, the movie which found him both his style and his audience. The
film fits into the New Queer Cinema filmmaking style excellently, as both the plot of the film
and the relationships of the characters are highly unconventional, while many of the shots are
experimental in form. It is remarkable for its strong social message and its representation of HIV
positive, gay men in the early nineties.
2

The Living End establishes its unashamed nihilism in its first moments as we hear a spray paint-
can being rigorously shaken as the title card, An irresponsible movie by Gregg Araki, appears.
The opening shot after a few brief credits shows the product of the spray cans vandalism; Fuck
The World (the films working title) sprawled across a graffiti covered cement wall in blood-red
paint. We then see Luke, a troubled hustler (Mike Dytri), for the first time. With head phones in
his ears blaring the films eccentric, industrial soundtrack, Luke removes an unlit cigarette from
his grinning mouth to take a swig of whiskey. Uncontrollably dancing around the dusty, barren
ground, Luke stops to look down upon the open concrete jungle that is Los Angeles before
forcefully hurling his now empty spray can at the unfriendly city. Angry and alone, Luke seems
to tower over the city. The irresponsible movie displays its rebellious fury from the very
beginning and shows it off like a badge of honour (Winter, 2006: p.73).

2
See Tenet 9 in Figure 1.1
Meanwhile, across the city, Jon (Craig Gilmore), a young, intellectual movie critic has just tested
positive for HIV.
3
He soliloquies that he has no idea what the fuck [hes] going to do. The
audience sees Jons world as very enclosed. He navigates his day-to-day either within the
confines of his car, his small apartment or his mind. Mills (1997: p.309) observes that;
If Luke seems like a giant in front of the skyline, the high-rises dwarf Jon.
Jon confides in his straight female best friend, Darcy (Darcy Marta), who seems to be his only
social contact with the outside world, with the exception of a strange caller who telephones him
in the late hours, hoping for phone sex. This is a stark contrast to Luke and his adventurous
nature, which sees him embarking on a surreal journey through the city, in the earlier parts of the
film. Between tagging urban walls with graffiti, Luke gets kidnapped by two lesbian serial killers
and witnesses a murder, but still retains his cool composure. Bizarre happenings occur
throughout Lukes earlier segments in the film. In one scene, based in a strange underground
parking lot, he scrawls I Blame Society onto a wall with a black sharpie while two men in
sadomasochistic dress walk past him. This setting is an obvious space of abjection (Kristeva:
1982) for queers. In comparison to the intellectual Jon who can easily verbalise his thoughts and
emotions, Luke is more action-oriented. He displays most of his angst through violence, sex and
graffiti. With the use of his black sharpie and spray-can (Figure 2.1), one can see that Luke is
actively-political and proud of his counter cultural space in society. In one segment, Luke sits in
a graffiti-covered bathroom stall and manipulates the text produced by another vandal. Crossing
out the Kill and turning the message into Fags rule, o.k., Luke demonstrates his need to get
his opinion of tolerance for homosexuality across.

3
Testing positive for HIV was generally seen as a death sentence in 1992 because of the lack of knowledge about
the disease, and thus, a lack of HIV medicines.

Figure 2.1 - Lukes graffiti throughout the film encompassing a variety of personal commentaries upon life.
While Jon searches for meaning in his life by driving around the city, he literally crashes into
Luke, who moments ago shot and killed three street thugs who threatened him with baseball bats.
Luke and Jon meet for the first time when Jon spontaneously lets the drifter into his car. Mills
(1997: p.310) observes that;
The dynamics of the relationship have been established from its onset: Lukes
imperative recklessness meets Jons willingness to comply.
Jon brings Luke home to his film poster-decorated apartment. Jons apartment acts as a shrine to
Arakis cinematic influence. Posters of gay art-house features like Warhols Blow Job (1963), as
well as several films from Jean-Luc Godards filmography don the walls. Araki has been
nicknamed the guerrilla Godard (Powers, 1992: p.1) and his love for the filmmaker is apparent
when examining The Living End, from the closing beach scene reminiscent of Pierrot le Fou
(1965), to the central characters first names.
4
Arakis American independent film
contemporaries Steven Soderbergh and Gus Van Sant are also referenced in T-shirts worn by the
unfortunate homophobes who cross Luke
5
.
In any analysis Ive found of the The Living End or the New Queer Cinema movement, fashion
has always been overlooked. I believe that in The Living End, the clothing worn by Luke, is a
great signifier of character. While Jon is constantly changing his outfits throughout the film,
Lukes wardrobe remains very consistent. Besides switching between a small selection of cult
music t-shirts and occasionally donning a black bikers bandana, he wears a pair of tight blue
ripped jeans, a pair of sunglasses, white boxer shorts, an earring, a Christian cross necklace, and
of course, a black leather jacket throughout the film. Although ruggedly masculine, the clothes
suggest that he is attempting to represent himself as queer. The outfit is strikingly similar and
possibly inspired by Marlon Brandos 1950s appearance. While referring to A Streetcar Named
Desire (1951), fellow gay filmmaker (and a pioneer of New Queer Cinema in his own right)
Derek Jarman (1994: p. 55) wrote that;
The modern queer was created by Tennessee Williams. Brando in blue jeans, sneakers,
white T-shirt, and leather jacket. When you saw that, you knew that they were available.
Valerie Steele (1996: p.128), author of Fetish, explains the queer fascination with these T-shirts;
The white cotton undershirt, for example, was an important gay signifier as early as the
1930s

4
Although the names Jon and Luke are a clear reference to Jean-Luc Godard, it should also be noted that the
names John and Luke are linked to the authorship of the Bibles New Testament.
5
Two thugs wear black T-shirts, baring the text logos of sex, lies and videotape (1989) and Drugstore Cowboy
(1989).
This association with homosexuality originates from the plain T-shirts connotations with the
working-class and its display of the male physique. Steele further states that;
Its appeal is also similar to that of tight blue jeans another clothing item that gay men
fetishized as early as the 1930s.
As Luke represents Jons sexual freedom, this uniform is very fitting. Bennett-England (1967:
p.42) wrote in his book Dress Optional, about how jeans can be highly homoerotic;
The more tight-fitting the jeans, the greater the emphasis of leg contours and the overt
bulge of masculinity.
With Lukes blue jeans ripped across his muscular thighs, his character is further sexualised. As
well as Lukes T-shirt and jeans, his leather jacket has also come to signify homosexuality. Vito
Russo (1981: p.37) noted that leather gear has become synonymous with the queer. He called
the durable material both savage and civilized, as well as being both a symbol of the
counterculture and an emblem of status. This aligns with Lukes rebellious and overtly sexual
personality as well as the nature of The Living End. Preston (1991; p.212) said that the material
was confrontational and radical thus Leather was gay sexuality stripped of being nice.
Similarly, a 1974 GBM Leathers advertisement asked Are you proud to be gay, butch, and a
man[?]

Figure 2.2 - The attire of a rebellious drifter: Marlon Brando (left) as Johnny in The Wild One and Mike Dytri (right) as Luke in
The Living End.
Leather jackets were also associated with Marlon Brando, as it featured heavily in The Wild One
(1953) (Figure 2.2). Luke even mimics Marlon further by constantly having a cigarette in his
mouth, although never lighting it. Between Lukes gay iconic, hyper-sexualised, radical clothing
and Jons carelessly baggy and varied attire, we can instantly read their strong characters.
Perhaps Lukes outfit also represents his fear of the virus running through his veins. Famed fetish
comic book designer Mike Sanez (LaFerla, 1994: p.62) compares the groundswell of interest in
fetishized fashions to the way they function as a kind of pseudo-armor and, in this age of
AIDS, represent an attempt to romanticize and eroticize the use of barriers.
Back at Jons apartment, Luke initiates seduction and the pair engage in intercourse. The
following day, the pair converse over Barbie-branded cereal
6
about Lukes conspiracy theories
on the AIDS epidemic. He comes to the conclusion that since their future is finite; they can rebel
against the system as they are totally free. Jons interest in Luke heightens tremendously once
they share a bed and conversation together. However, later that day, he sees Lukes dark side
when they run into a skinhead whos self-proclamation of close-mindedness is displayed in the
form of a pig on his T-Shirt. Jon watches as Luke slays a random homophobe once again. Upset
with Lukes actions, Jon kicks him out, but Jons infatuation with the hustler grows stronger in
his absence. They suddenly meet again, when Jon is awakened by Luke one night. Sitting on his
bed, Luke contemplates taking his life after his recklessness catches up with him and he kills a
cop. Luke persuades Jon to drive north with him, in an attempt to escape the authorities. Jon
and Lukes paths wind in union for the reminder of the film as they engage in a routine of
driving, conversing and love-making.
The explicit scenes of homosexual intercourse
7
in The Living End are some of the most
important moments of the film. Although no genitalia are actually visible, the scenes are still
very shocking; especially in contrast to the much tamer depictions of gay sex that Hollywood
was producing at the time. In order for movies like Philadelphia (1993) and Longtime
Companion (1989) to appeal to a wider audience, physical contact between two gay men was
kept to a minimum, and sex was out of the question, especially if they had HIV/AIDS. Araki
ignores these conventions. Mills (1997: p.313) believes that;

6
Araki comments on consumerism through this brand name and many other products/advertisements placed in
the film.
7
See Tenet 8 in Figure 1.1
Hot sex is a crucial, and political, aspect of an AIDS narrative, especially to contrast
gay cinema from the Hollywood AIDS films habit of portraying a celibate and sick
protagonist.
In a bid to offend the mainstream, The Living End breaks these taboos by having a vast variety of
sexual encounters between Luke and Jon. Although both characters have opposing personalities,
Araki keeps their sexual playground equal. Both characters feature in a scene where they are
being sexually penetrated, so in turn, they both feature in a scene where they are penetrating their
counterpart also. Besides their equality in sexual versatility, Jon and Luke both share the same
HIV status and although safe sex is considered, it is ultimately ignored with Luke referring to the
practice as sex in a plastic bag. Like AIDS, sex is always at the forefront of the film. The tones
of sexuality within the film are also very diverse; while the film sees Jon and Luke tenderly
making love on a motel bed, on Jons apartment floor or in the shower, there are also more
immodest moments that could easily offend the mainstream, such as Jon receiving fellatio from
Luke while driving, or the finales rape and attempted suicide. With its risqu sexual nature,
grainy quality and b-movie acting, the film seems to purposefully imitate gay pornography.
Grundmann (1992: p.27) states that; The Living End is largely a gay porn pastiche. There is
however somewhat of an injustice to this comparison, since the sex of The Living End is entirely
simulated, unlike pornography. So inevitably, the authenticity of the sex is diminished and it is
seen as an act of arousal, rather than declaration of love. Richard Dyer (2002: p.202) argues that
theres a contradiction here;
Seeing sexuality as performance rather than expression is appealing, since it does not
implicate that compelling notion, the self. At the same time, dominant culture does little
to naturalise our sexuality, making it harder to see gay sex acts as a product of pure need.
We are less likely to think of gay sex in terms of biology than of aesthetics.
What is also a refreshing break from Hollywoods perception of homosexuality is the friendship
of Jon and Darcy.
8
Darcy acts as Jons confidant and best friend. This is in startling contrast to
other 90s films like My Best Friends Wedding (1997) and Clueless (1995) where the gay male
best friend is seen as a supporting fashion accessory to the heterosexual leading-lady and her
problematic romantic life. In The Living End, Darcy is constantly worrying about Jon and his
circumstance he finds himself in. In one of the movies first scenes, Jon tells Darcy of his HIV
status, initiating her deep concern for him. After Jon flees L.A. with Luke and embarks on their
sex-fuelled adventure, Darcy waits endlessly by the phone for him to call, even sacrificing her
own relationship in the process and eventually leading to an aggressive meltdown.
Although this view of women is somewhat original in form, women are still viewed in The
Living End in a marginalised light, thus the film is heedlessly misogynistic (Taubin, 1992).
Although every character in the film is flawed, women are seen as entirely more erratic and dim-
witted in their actions. Besides Darcys obsession with Jon, the two lesbian serial killers who
pick up Luke at the beginning of the film seem to lack the intellect to successfully kill him, or
even break his cool. Instead, Luke is able to rob both their gun (clearly, intended to be the
lesbians phallic weapon to emasculate him) and their car, humorously leaving them alone in the
outskirts of the city. This has a strikingly different to Lukes efficiency and his ability to
effortlessly kill anyone who gets in his way. The only woman who seems to have any power is
the scorned wife who kills her bisexual husband for enlisting Lukes prostitute services. The
wife, who seems to be intentionally giving a poor acting performance, reminiscent of something
which might be found in a student slasher film, lacks any emotion and seems unconscious in the
violence of her actions. This performance does not inspire sympathy for her from the audiences

8
See Tenet 7 in Figure 1.1
perspective, rather than just labelling her as insane. In The Living End, Araki clearly holds no
loyalties to women, or any other queer categories that arent gay males for that matter, which
goes against the grain of the vast majority of other New Queer Cinema entries. Mills (1997:
p.321) believes that this is part of the films radical agenda;
Feminists, gays and lesbians heighten their chances of survival when they ally together,
rather than antagonize one another. The Living End may legitimately be more interested
in surveying a separate gay space than a pluralistic queer or bi-gendered one.
After spending their days driving around, having sex in motel rooms or lounging by the pool, the
cracks in their relationship begin to surface; Luke becomes increasingly violent and Jons health
begins to deteriorate. Jon, feeling trapped by his disease and his commitment with the now-
unstable Luke, tells Darcy hes returning home. Scared of abandonment after Jon tells him that
their holiday in the sun is over, Luke provokes a fight which ultimately ends in Jons
kidnapping. In the films climax, Jon awakes, tied up on an empty beach as Luke begins to rape
him, proclaiming;
Cant you see? I love you more than life... I dont care about anything anymore.
This heartfelt declaration is a response to a question proposed earlier in the film by Luke himself,
in which he asked Jon would he rather die for sex or love? Removing the revolver from his
pocket, Luke places the weapon in his mouth with the intention to kill himself when he reaches
the height of orgasm.
9
As he proceeds to ejaculate, Luke pulls the trigger only to realise he shot
his final bullet at an ATM machine during a previous rage-blackout. Discarding the pistol, Luke
unties Jon, and as they share a silent moment of uninterrupted eye contact. Jon delivers a heavy
blow to Lukes face before angrily walking off. Luke is left sitting alone on the beach. A few

9
His intention to do this was previously stated in the film, albeit, during casual conversation.
moments later, Jon returns and sits with him, taking his hand in his, and resting his head upon
Lukes shoulder. The couple have now reached a new level of intimacy. No longer a relationship
solely reliant on lust and spontaneity, its clear the vast sunset enveloping them is a metaphor for
their evolved mutual love for each other. The credits begin to roll as we see the pair in embrace
on the empty beach; confused, vulnerable and HIV positive (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 Jon and Luke embracing at sunset. The final shot of the film.
The title of the film also deserves attention when analyzing the film. The colloquial, 1930s
idiom the living end is simply defined as The utmost in any situation, something quite
extraordinary.
10
While this phrase certainly suits the films atmosphere and visuals, there may
perhaps be an alternative purpose for titling it after this informal expression. Film critics of The

10
Definition for the living end was found on dictionary.com
Living End drew many comparisons to Ridley Scotts blockbuster feature Thelma and Louise
(1991), featuring two women, bored of their mundane lives, on the run through vast American
landscapes. The films famous closing scene sees the two outlaws drive their convertible into the
Grand Canyon rather than handing themselves over to the authorities. Released the year before
The Living End, critics saw similarities between the two films with some calling it the gay
Thelma and Louise (Harding, 2007). However, unlike its female Hollywood compatriot, the two
lead characters surprisingly survive in The Living Ends passionate climax.
11
With the law
chasing them, Jons health deteriorating and Lukes ever increasing irrational outbursts, the
viewer waits for the two antiheroes to meet their impending doom, but against all odds, we are
denied this. The movie has a literal living end.
The Living Ends two leads seem to constantly flirt with death at every turn. This flirtation ties
into the HIV/AIDS canon. There are many references to death within the narrative. One of the
more obvious examples is the article Jon is writing, titled; The Death of Cinema (also a tribute
to New Queer Cinema and Arakis radical filmmaking style). Other death references range from
the obtrusive, to the subtle; Jons pet fish dies, he talks about the band Death Can Dance, his
bumper sticker reads Choose Death, several skulls decorate his apartment (including a literal
skeleton in the closet, a metaphor for his hidden HIV status). However, whats also remarkable
about the film is that despite the violence, sleaziness and constant references to death, there is a
beautiful tenderness to Jon and Lukes love for each other. Luke draws a heart which reads Jon
+ Luke, til death do us part, referencing their love as well as their finite life-spans as a result of
HIV. In the films closing scenes, in the midst of Lukes insanity and Jon weariness, their love
for each other really shines through. Luke tenderly licks Jons blood from a wound (which he

11
See Tenet 5 in Figure 1.1
caused) like a primal instinct, a mark of territory. This is reminiscent of when Luke licked Jons
nose earlier in the film during their first night together after he learns that they share the same
blood. They have found something in common that separates them from society in general. Jon
and Luke are truly meant for each other. Despite their differences, they are both HIV positive
gay men, strained by society with only each other to depend on.
Araki reinvents the road genre as well as the tired representation of homosexuals as heartless
killers.

In B. Ruby Richs fundamental New Queer Cinema article, queer independent films
like The Living End were not the only topic discussed. Rich also drew comparisons to
contemporary Hollywood, as she also noted the release (and public reception) of Paul
Verhoevens Basic Instinct (1992). The neo-noir caused a furore among the queer community,
split into those who were enraged by the films portrayal of homicidal lesbians, and those excited
by the femme-fatale antagonists ruthless nature and allure. Similarly to Cruising (1980),
released a decade before, gay rights activists campaigned to stop its release as they strongly
opposed the film[s]s encouragement of the deep-rooted popular myth that homosexuality and
sexual kinkiness are ultimately forces of evil. (McNair, 2002: p.153) Much like their cinematic
historical representation of killers, gay men were also being depicted as sexual deviants.
Loughery (1998: p.439) points this out;
Gay men also became more alert to the ways in which it served societys interests to
portray them as sex-crazed and immoral, and to the fact that the burden rested on them to
differentiate between true morality and ideas about erotic expression that were, in fact,
subjective and arbitrary.
Araki embraces these condemnations of homosexual sex and violence to the dismay of
conservative critics, leading the film to be labeled a gaysploitation by some (Natale, 1995).
Basic Instinct was not unlike other New Queer Cinema entries like The Living End (as well as
Tom Kalins Swoon or Todd Verows Frisk (1995)), in that they portrayed queer characters as
serial killers. However, unlike Instinct, The Living End was not viewed by (nor intended to be
viewed by) a general popcorn audience. In reference to Verhoevens film, Benshoff (1997:
p.232) argues that;
the resultant connotative and cumulative effect of such images on non-queer
spectators remains retrogressive.
Their respective designated demographics are what separate them. In The Living Ends case,
Luke is not a villain as he kills homophobes and rejects heteronormal society.
12
While in Basic
Instinct, bisexual seductress Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is the villain because she rejects
heteronormal society. After all, heteronormal society is the latter films intended audience. Queer
persons can find the pleasure Rich speaks of in Lukes rejection of heteronormativity, but as
Stones murderous sociopath is a threat to straight patriarchal society, she is feared. However,
Tramell is a member of high society who is capable of co-existing with non-queer society, unlike
the angry street hustler Luke, who lacks the qualification to do so. The Living End could also be
compared with other New Queer Cinema entries such as Gus Van Sants My Own Private Idaho,
Bruce LaBruces Hustler White (1996) Seth Michael Donskys Twisted (1996) on account of
their depictions of queer male street-hustlers on the margins of society.
The Living End fits into the framework of New Queer Cinema very well, for many different
reasons. One of the chief aims of New Queer Cinema is to retell queer history through film and
in turn, reassess society.
13
However, Araki does the opposite, he documents queer [nineties]
society to reassess our history. To call The Living End radical would seem like an

12
See Tenet 4 in Figure 1.1
13
See Tenet 10 in Figure 1.1
understatement. It questions AIDS and HIV, a huge problem in a society which figureheads like
US president, George Bush Sr, chose to ignore at the time.
14
Luke delivers one of The Living
Ends most important and memorable lines of dialogue;
What do ya say we go to Washington and blow Bushs brains out?... or better yet, inject
him with a syringe full of our blood? How much would you wanna bet theyd have a
magic cure by tomorrow?
Although the vast differences between Jon and Luke are apparent early on, they do share a
similar status in society. Like many other characters within New Queer Cinema, Jon and Luke
are very much queer personalities who occupy the margins of their society
15
that B. Ruby
Rich first talked about in Sight & Sound. While both are marginalised through their HIV status
and sexual orientation, Luke is especially negligible, because of his low social-class. So Jon and
Luke are not subjects or objects, they are abjects. According to Kristeva (1982), this labelling of
abjectivity could be assigned to them, since the pair is;
...radically excluded and... draws [one] toward the place where meaning collapses.
New Queer Cinema acts as a voice for the repressed and no other film uses this voice, quite like
The Living End, this is essentially why I chose it as a case study. Through its two leads, The
Living End takes two separate opinions on being a HIV positive American in 1992: Luke blames
society while Jon blames himself. Both opinions were shared by the majority of queer persons
who dealt with prejudice during the late 80s and early 90s. This prejudice was due to
homosexualitys link to AIDS. The Living End aims to represent these people through a method
that was never been done before it; through film.

14
See Tenet 11 in Figure 1.1
15
See Tenet 6 in Figure 1.1
Filmography

Araki, G. (1987) Three Bewildered People In The Night [Motion picture] Desperate Pictures,
distributed by Gregg Araki, USA.
Araki, G. (1989) Long Weekend (O Despair) [Motion picture] Desperate Pictures, distributed by
Gregg Araki, USA.
Araki, G. (1992) Living End, The [Motion picture] Desperate Pictures, distributed by Strand
Releasing, USA.
Benedek, L. (1953) Wild One, The [Motion picture] Stanley Kramer Productions, distributed by
Columbia Pictures, USA.
Demme, J. (1993) Philadelphia [Motion picture] TriStar Pictures, distributed by TriStar Pictures,
USA.
Donsky, S.M. (1996) Twisted [Motion picture] Don Quixote/Miravista Films, distributed by
Leisure Time Features, USA.
Friedkin, W. (1980) Cruising [Motion picture] Lorimar Film Entertainment, distributed by
United Artists, USA.
Godard, J.L. (1965) Pierrot le Fou [Motion picture] Socit Nouvelle de Cinmatographie
(SNC), distributed by Socit Nouvelle de Cinmatographie (SNC), France.
Haynes, T. (1991) Poison [Motion picture] Killer Films, distributed by Zeitgeist Films, USA.
Heckerling, A. (1995) Clueless [Motion picture] Paramount Pictures, distributed by Paramount
Pictures, USA.
Hogan, P.H. (1997) My Best Friends Wedding [Motion picture] TriStar, distributed by Sony
Pictures Entertainement, USA.
Kalin, T. (1992) Swoon [Motion picture] Killer Films, distributed by Fine Line Features, USA.
Kazan, E. (1951) Streetcar Named Desire, A [Motion picture] Warner Bros. Pictures, distributed
by Warner Bros. Pictures, USA.
LaBruce, B. & Castro, R. (1996) Hustler White [Motion picture] Jrgen Brning
Filmproduktion, distributed by Strand Releasing, Canada/Germany.
Livingston, J. (1990) Paris Is Burning [Motion picture] Miramax Films, distributed by Academy
Entertainment, USA.
Ren, N. (1989) Longtime Companion [Motion picture] American Playhouse, distributed by
Samuel Goldwyn Company, The, USA.
Scott, R. (1991) Thelma and Louise [Motion picture] Path Entertainment, distributed by Metro-
Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), USA.
Soderbergh, S. (1989) sex, lies and videotape [Motion picture] Outlaw Productions, distributed
by Miramax Films, USA.
Van Sant, G. (1989) Drugstore Cowboy [Motion picture] Avenue Pictures Productions,
distributed by Avenue Pictures Productions, USA.
Van Sant, G. (1991) My Own Private Idaho [Motion picture] New Line Cinema, distributed by
Fine Line Features, USA.
Verhoeven, P. (1992) Basic Instinct [Motion picture] Le Studio Canal+, distributed by TriStar
Pictures, USA.
Verow, T. (1995) Frisk [Motion picture] Verow Pictures, distributed by Strand Releasing, USA.
Warhol, A. (1963) Blow Job [Motion picture] Andy Warhols Factory, distributed by Raro
Video, USA.











Bibliography

Aaron, M. (2004) New Queer Cinema: A Critical Reader. Edinburgh, United Kingdom:
Edinburgh University Press.
Bennett-England, R. (1967) Dress Optional: The Revolution in Menswear. London, United
Kingdom: Peter Owen.
Benshoff, H. M. (1997) Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film.
Manchester, United Kingdom: Manchester University Press.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. New York City, New York, USA: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1976) The History of Sexuality, volume I: La Volont de savoir. London, United
Kingdom: Penguin Books.
Grundmann, R. (1992) The Fantasies We Live By: Bad Boys in Swoon and The Living
End. Cinaste, Issue 19, Fall 1992.
Halperin, D. M. (1997) Saint = Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Harding, M-O (2007) After Elton. The Twenty Most Groundbreaking Gay Films: 18. The
Living End. [online] Available: January 15
th
2012.
http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/movies/2007/2/20films18.html
Jagose, A. (1996) Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York City, New York, USA: New York
University Press.
Jarman, D. (1994) At Your Own Risk: A Saints Testament. New York City, New York, USA:
Overlook Press.
Kristeva, J. (1982) Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Roudiez, L.S. (trans.). New York
City, New York, USA: Columbia UP.
LaFerla, R. (1994) Terminatrix Style. Elle Magazine, June 1994.
Loughery, J. (1998) The Other Side of Silence: Mens Lives and Gay Identities: A Twentieth-
Century History. New York City, New York, USA: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
McNair, B. (2002) Striptease Culture: Sex, Media and the Democratisation of Desire. London,
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Mills, K. (1997) Chapter 14: Revitalizing The Road Genre; The Living End as an AIDS road
film., in The Road Movie Book. Cohan, S. & Hark, I. R. (ed.). London, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Natale, R. (10 December, 1995) Gaysploitation Films Find a Nicely Profitable Niche. The
Los Angeles Times Calendar. 29-31.
Powers, J. Beetle In The Grass: Why Gregg Araki Doesnt Kill Himself. LA Weekly, August
21-7 1992.
Preston, J. (1991) What Happened?, in Leatherfolk: Radical Sex, People, Politics and
Practice. Thompson, M. (ed.). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Alyson.
Rich, B. R. (1992) New Queer Cinema, in Sight & Sound, Volume 2, Issue 5. September 1992.
p. 30-5.
Russo, V. (1981) Why Is Leather Like Ethel Merman? Village Voice, April 15-21. p. 37
Sedgwick, E. K. (1991) Epistemology of the Closet. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Centennial
Books.
Steele, V. (1996) Fetish: Fashion, Sex and Power. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.
Taubin, A. (1992) Queer Male Cinema and Feminism, reprinted in Women and Film: A Sight
and Sound Reader. Cook, P. & Dodd, P. (ed.) London, United Kingdom: Scarlett Press.
Winter, J. (2006) The Rough Guide to American Independent Film. London, United Kingdom:
Penguin Books.
[Unknown Designer] (1974) GBM Leathers. [advertising flyer], file Clothing Catalogs (Male,
US) (Twentieth Century), Kinsey Institute.