Thanks for the memories!

From my favorite movies..

A lot of fun.

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Queen is a documentary detailing the events that happened behind the scenes of the 1967 Miss Gay America pageant in New York. Personally, I have only watched this film because it was a recommended when I had watched another famous LGBT documentary (Paris is Burning). Their actually pretty similar in content. Though I found Queen less connected with its subject. Nevertheless, Queen is a great example of the Cinema Verite tradition of the time. No sensationalism here. We see the contestant to their barest bare to their lushest maquillage as they talk of different things such as sex reassignment surgery, discrimination or the damn nasty bitterness of defeat. Only their personally lifting the mood of each scene. Making it an even more interesting time piece of a pre-AIDS/Stonewall LGBT scene wherein being out means scorn and discrimination. Interestingly, it also proves that the clothes had changed but the attitude and flair remains pretty much the same. [3.5/5]

I give t a 10 for what it captured. It is raw, rough and imperfect, but delivers a unique view into what was the pre-Stonewall era. Other reviewers here don't get it. See: Boys in the Band. This is as real as it gets, and makes several touching points about serving in the military/the draft, what it means to be homosexual, and early thoughts about gender identity in an era when gender reassignment became a possibility. This is not a drag show. It's a film about people who do drag/female impersonation. And it's a poignant film and should be a required watch for anyone in the scene or homosexual or in drag today - a part of history that few know anything about. Keep in mind: although this was the 'lberated' 60s, the NYPD could have very well showed up and arrested all these people. A great piece of history, without someone's re-interpretation.

I've seen references to this film which incorrectly identify it as 'The Queens', plural, apparently referring to the participants as a bunch of "queens". The film's correct title is 'The Queen', singular, and I do mean singular. This is not a drag ball, in the style of 'Paris Is Burning' and other such affairs: this is a drag beauty pageant, with contestants vying in the knowledge that only one can be crowned: hence that title.'The Queen' was bankrolled(?) by the late Lewis M Allen, elsewhere a Wall Street financier and Broadway producer, but you wouldn't know it from watching this movie. This is a no-budget documentary, and the cheapness and shoddiness of the production values make the subject matter look even cheaper and shoddier than necessary. I'm frankly surprised that this movie got made at ALL in the 1960s, and even more surprised that it received a general (not underground) release in 1968. Credit for the film's distribution -- spasmodic as it was -- goes to Grove Press, a publishing house notorious for issuing high-quality editions of 'Fanny Hill', 'Harriet Marwood, Governess' and other erotica of the past.Beauty pageants in general don't much interest me, as I tend to find them demeaning ... and that goes regardless of the contenders' genders. In this movie, the sequence (sequins?) which I found most bizarre didn't involve cross-dressing at all. This was when one of the contestants, still in male attire, speaks to the interviewer in an epicene voice which falls precisely between the male and female registers. Then, suddenly, he bursts into song ... still in that same twilight register. Even more oddly, the song he's singing is 'Honey Bun', from 'South Pacific'. This is ostensibly a song performed by a macho sailor bragging about his curvaceous girlfriend, but -- as staged in 'South Pacific' -- it's actually a song written for a woman in male drag, singing about a man in female drag. I wonder if the singer in this movie intended those layers of gender-bending.Any transvestites in the audience for this movie will probably glean some comfort from the fact that the cross-dressers shown here are (mostly) very ordinary-looking men -- overweight, balding -- with no special entree to feminine beauty nor daintiness. Any big hairy bloke who wants to look pretty has as good a chance as most of the males in this film.For those of us not into beauty pageants, drag or otherwise, this film's major significance is historical. Among the people we see here is Richard Finnochio, now forgotten but once deeply notorious. Finnochio was the proprietor of a San Francisco nightclub which openly advertised drag acts, but which also booked stand-up comedians who were too edgy or raw to be able to get bookings elsewhere. Lenny Bruce honed his early act at Finocchio's.Also seen here is an effeminate Latino boy named Mario Montez. I had assumed that this was a stage name, playing on MARIA Montez, a 'camp' actress who has a large gay following. I was wrong; according to the very minimal press kit for 'The Queen', that was his real name. Nice to know that something in this movie is genuine. (UPDATE: I was wrong twice; after posting this review, I received reliable information that Mario Montez was born Rene Rivera, and he did indeed name himself for Maria Motez.)Towards the end of the film, there is some slight genuine suspense as we wait to see which of these would-be's will be crowned the queen. I shan't offer a rating for 'The Queen': it certainly does deserve one, but I'm probably not qualified to rate it objectively. Maybe this film broke some ground in 1968, but it has long since been eclipsed by far more outrageous sexual fare. Possibly that's a good thing. To anyone who thinks I disrespect the subject matter or the people depicted in this film: please note that I managed to get through this entire review without resorting to cheap wisecracks like "What a drag!"

You can't get much stranger than this 1967 documentary that takes a look at a New York drag show where contestants compete both on and off stage for the crown. Running just over an hour and filmed with hand-held cameras, THE QUEEN is tacky, vulgar, distasteful, embarrassing, and often quite funny as it peeks behind the scenes of the event. But the film is more than accidental camp humor--it really is a historical artifact.Very few gays or lesbians were "out" before the 1969 Stonewall riots, and the contestants shown here are among the few... and not only were they out, they were out as drag queens, doing the unthinkable by stomping across the stage in evening gowns, heels, and eyeliner. This is not the sort of drag that has entered popular mainstream entertainment via such performers as RuPaul: this is in-your-face, I-am-what-am, I-don't-care DRAG as performed by skinny teenagers with bad skin, fat guys with bald spots, and tough men with hairy chests and tattoos. This is big hair, big make up, and big attitude, and it is all the more unnerving because it isn't just a character that the contestants put on and off. This is the reality that sparked a thousand stereotypes.Much of the film's entertainment value is accidental. There is nothing funnier, or more painfully embarrassing, than a chunky drag queen in out-of-style clothes. THE QUEEN is really too superficial to be called significant, too tacky-funny to be taken very seriously--and yet, it does make you wonder about the lives of those before the Stonewall Riots, the Gay Liberation Movement, the Anita Bryant hysteria, the advent of AIDS. And therein lies its power: it is a time machine, badly filmed, yes, superficial, yes, but a time machine just the same, capable of giving us a glimpse of what it was like to be gay, a drag queen, and in New York in the mid-1960s. It won't be to every one's taste, but it is worth a look if you can find a copy.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer