Anyone who believes that he/she has a good handle on understanding transgender culture and sensibilities is bound to have his/her eyes thrust wide open by this thoughtful, inventive documentary from writer-director Chase Joynt. In creating this offering, the filmmaker seeks to enliven the little-known life experiences of mid-20th Century transgender pioneers like the title character and how they blazed trails for those who followed, particularly in terms of their challenges related to acceptance and often having to trade one set of unfulfilling circumstances for another, in both cases as a result of society's rigid gender role expectations. The film also addresses how these questions were often compounded by other significant considerations, especially for minorities, such as the pervasive and persistent existence of racial inequities in the days before the Civil Rights Movement, conditions that rendered these transgender individuals virtually invisible. And the picture also shows how many of those issues have lingered to this day, with change only now beginning to emerge in some regards. This is all accomplished through an intriguing juxtaposition of the observations of contemporary transgender historians and re-created actor-portrayed interviews of community pioneers by a fictional TV talk show host who's based on UCLA sociologist Harold Garfinkel, an early researcher of this subject. Both of the foregoing elements are further intercut with interviews of the transgender performers who portray these community trailblazers, dialogues in which they provide their insights into the characters they play, as well as descriptions of events from their own life experiences. This mix of narrative components makes for an intriguing, enlightening watch, one that moves along at a refreshingly brisk pace thanks to its astute observations and economical 1:15.00 runtime. To be honest, though, as informative as the talk show sequences are (presented in a 1950-ish black-and-white format a la The Mike Wallace Interview), the use of this storytelling device feels somewhat contrived (if not more than a little precious), despite the depth of the revelations to come out of them. Still, there's ample food for thought packed into this 2022 Sundance Film Festival award winner, much of it illuminating about both this diverse community and the notion of gender itself, regardless of one's leanings.
9 Reviews
A dialog on transgender experiences across time
hunga12322 April 2022
This is being shown as part of the Seattle International Film Festival.
I found this a heart-tugging dialog on gender experience, focusing on the experience of trans-gender "now" and in the past. The past experience comes from academic interviews conducted by academic researchers at UCLA, brought to life by modern trans actors. These interviews of course are limited to the questions asked in the room, and further limited by what was shared in this presentation, and thus the nature of the actual lives lived is two-dimensional. I found the interplay with the modern insights that the trans actors and academics drew from these interviews compelling and moving. In some ways, In some ways, I found the documentary to be more about them than the actual interviewees.
I watched this production with an open heart and mind. I had no known preconceptions - documentaries by far are often opinion pieces based on collected facts. They related what is seen in the eye of the "producers."
Various people have been negative on this title for various reasons. I still would recommend it being watched.
For me, "Framing Agnes" compellingly reiterates the humanity of all members of our species. People trying to live, and trying to live in their truth.
I found this a heart-tugging dialog on gender experience, focusing on the experience of trans-gender "now" and in the past. The past experience comes from academic interviews conducted by academic researchers at UCLA, brought to life by modern trans actors. These interviews of course are limited to the questions asked in the room, and further limited by what was shared in this presentation, and thus the nature of the actual lives lived is two-dimensional. I found the interplay with the modern insights that the trans actors and academics drew from these interviews compelling and moving. In some ways, In some ways, I found the documentary to be more about them than the actual interviewees.
I watched this production with an open heart and mind. I had no known preconceptions - documentaries by far are often opinion pieces based on collected facts. They related what is seen in the eye of the "producers."
Various people have been negative on this title for various reasons. I still would recommend it being watched.
For me, "Framing Agnes" compellingly reiterates the humanity of all members of our species. People trying to live, and trying to live in their truth.
had to watch for a class (are we taking the same one? ;)
suzie-toumeh3 May 2024
So, I was assigned this documentary for a class It's a dive into American transgender history. It focused on six individuals from the 1950s, whose stories were buried within the UCLA Gender Clinic archives.
Now, the movie has a unique approach where they reenact moments from the archives, and they've got real trans actors playing these characters, which is pretty cool. The actors would then get a little bit to talk about their own lives. But here's the thing - while we get these fascinating glimpses, the documentary mainly focuses on the actors and the scholar commenting on the archive. Take Agnes, for example. She's interviewed for a whopping two years, yet we only hear a fraction of what she said. And that's where the documentary falls a bit short.
But don't get me wrong, the documentary does touch on a lot of crucial issues. For instance, Georgia's story sheds light on the harsh realities faced by black trans women, who struggle more than other trans women to find employment opportunities due to racial discrimination. One story that stuck with me was about this trans teen. He was seeking to transition, and their humor was just something else.
There were however some missed opportunities to explore certain themes further. Religion, for example, is briefly mentioned through Georgia's evangelical background and her comment that she reads the bibile.
Moreover, another thing that struck me was how the documentary handled the validity of these archival interviews. What about the discussion of the limitations of the archive? The scholar commenting in this documentary barely scratches the surface, hinting at the amount of deception in the recorded trascript without fully delving into it. I would have enjoyed more critical analysis on this point.
Overall, it's not all action-packed. Some parts drag a bit, and it's not the kind of thing I'd watch for fun. And let's talk about the pacing. There were moments where the scholarly commentary felt disconnected. The constant abstract musings on visibility versus invisibility started to feel repetitive, and I found myself longing for more focus on the archival interviews.
Overall, it's a shallow journey into the past that mostly wants to reflect on the present. It's not gonna leave you with answers, but it'll definitely throw some abstract questions at you.
Now, the movie has a unique approach where they reenact moments from the archives, and they've got real trans actors playing these characters, which is pretty cool. The actors would then get a little bit to talk about their own lives. But here's the thing - while we get these fascinating glimpses, the documentary mainly focuses on the actors and the scholar commenting on the archive. Take Agnes, for example. She's interviewed for a whopping two years, yet we only hear a fraction of what she said. And that's where the documentary falls a bit short.
But don't get me wrong, the documentary does touch on a lot of crucial issues. For instance, Georgia's story sheds light on the harsh realities faced by black trans women, who struggle more than other trans women to find employment opportunities due to racial discrimination. One story that stuck with me was about this trans teen. He was seeking to transition, and their humor was just something else.
There were however some missed opportunities to explore certain themes further. Religion, for example, is briefly mentioned through Georgia's evangelical background and her comment that she reads the bibile.
Moreover, another thing that struck me was how the documentary handled the validity of these archival interviews. What about the discussion of the limitations of the archive? The scholar commenting in this documentary barely scratches the surface, hinting at the amount of deception in the recorded trascript without fully delving into it. I would have enjoyed more critical analysis on this point.
Overall, it's not all action-packed. Some parts drag a bit, and it's not the kind of thing I'd watch for fun. And let's talk about the pacing. There were moments where the scholarly commentary felt disconnected. The constant abstract musings on visibility versus invisibility started to feel repetitive, and I found myself longing for more focus on the archival interviews.
Overall, it's a shallow journey into the past that mostly wants to reflect on the present. It's not gonna leave you with answers, but it'll definitely throw some abstract questions at you.
Best Documentary at Merlinka festival
merlinkafest29 March 2023
Framing Agnes is history, a film made from archive footage that was never filmed. But acted in this way are no less believable - one of the actors points out that it is interesting that it is not known in what tone the test subjects uttered the written sentences, but no matter how a word is interpreted, one thing is important - each one was uttered by a trans woman, or some trans man at a time when the world didn't even know they existed. So limited, spoken in an office and locked in archives, they are still a revolution, because the rebellion starts from the first spoken syllable. We repeat once again - Framing Agnes is history and a very important film.
Failed Hybrid Doc
alexa2022sd29 March 2022
This was my least favorite film I saw at Sundance (Fire of Love was probably my favorite). I'm guessing the source material was interesting enough, so it's too bad it turned out this way. I can understand why the topic would impress festival critics. I'm also really glad to see more trans films coming out over the last few years (all the other ones I've seen were better than this one).
I have to be honest though, I mostly agree with the other review that says this could have been a much better film than the one that was screened. The problem is the way that Framing Agnes tells its story is confusing, and not in a way that pays back interpretation beyond what the film already tells you about itself. The pacing was off too. And it wasn't visually exciting. Somehow a 75-minute feature felt like it dragged for over 2 hours. At parts, this felt like a student film, its heart is in the right place but it fails -- and not in an interesting way.
Also I'm also a fan of reenactments and experimental fiction elements in documentaries. For a couple of decades I've seen many films blur history and fiction. Maybe the most creative and stunning and well known example was The Act of Killing. Framing Agnes tries to use reenactment to produce a counternarrative to the representation of trans people in history, on TV, and other contexts. In theory that's a promising idea. In practice it doesn't work well. What the film does just isn't as new as at least one of the reviews I read claimed. A couple of the performances are really strong, which is why I'm higher on this than the other reviewer even though I agree about the director's awkward performance. Still, the reenacted segments are both poorly integrated and the writing is mostly flat. The takeaways about trans people might have been more surprising or meaningful 10 years ago than they are now. I'm sure this film will win festival awards but I can't see it finding an audience beyond a smaller group of people who want to see a film that unfortunately isn't there.
I have to be honest though, I mostly agree with the other review that says this could have been a much better film than the one that was screened. The problem is the way that Framing Agnes tells its story is confusing, and not in a way that pays back interpretation beyond what the film already tells you about itself. The pacing was off too. And it wasn't visually exciting. Somehow a 75-minute feature felt like it dragged for over 2 hours. At parts, this felt like a student film, its heart is in the right place but it fails -- and not in an interesting way.
Also I'm also a fan of reenactments and experimental fiction elements in documentaries. For a couple of decades I've seen many films blur history and fiction. Maybe the most creative and stunning and well known example was The Act of Killing. Framing Agnes tries to use reenactment to produce a counternarrative to the representation of trans people in history, on TV, and other contexts. In theory that's a promising idea. In practice it doesn't work well. What the film does just isn't as new as at least one of the reviews I read claimed. A couple of the performances are really strong, which is why I'm higher on this than the other reviewer even though I agree about the director's awkward performance. Still, the reenacted segments are both poorly integrated and the writing is mostly flat. The takeaways about trans people might have been more surprising or meaningful 10 years ago than they are now. I'm sure this film will win festival awards but I can't see it finding an audience beyond a smaller group of people who want to see a film that unfortunately isn't there.
Great topic, terrible documentary
drjacobgrayson31 March 2023
This documentary has great source material and therefore great potential, it's really too bad that whoever is in charge of this mess decide to ruin it with some sort of artistic vision. I wanted to like it, but it's impossible. The fundamental problem is that the documentary flips between real footage, reenactments, and interviews with the actors doing the reenactments. It's this last part that really caused confusion, because it becomes difficult to determine who we're talking about or who's really doing the talking. Is it an actress in character? Out of character? A researcher? After a while I had to give up. It's a shame.
Academic Filmmaking, Confused Story
eeblunt30 January 2022
Academic filmmaking, not in a good way. I wanted to like it and am the right audience, so am more disappointed. The best thing about it is getting trans actors on screen (Gil-Peterson is great on screen, wish there was way more Angelica, less of the director who shows up in almost every scene for some reason). But there are better ways to do that. The storytelling is confusing. The editing is all over the place. This could have been a very good movie. But what we get is pretentious and rushed. Lotsa jargon. Lotsa postmodern meta stuff that would have made more sense, and been more original, 10-20 years ago. This content could have been interesting but it's mishandled. Not sure anyone outside of the festival crowd and certain kinds of critics will find things to like here if they're being honest. Maybe if the core story was clearer and more thought was put into putting it together, the "experimental" departures would be more meaningful, and this could actually reach beyond elite insiders.
Trans Documentary that Fails to Impress Me
chenp-5470820 April 2022
Saw this back at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival
This documentary is directed by Chase Joynt (Cool name) and it is about the media's ongoing fascination with trans people. With the film being shown through a talk show kind of format, it breathes into the life of six previously unknown stories from the archives of the UCLA Gender Clinic in the 1950s. The documentary is presented with reenactments and experimental fiction elements from actors to try and portray the exact moments that happened in the past. The make up from the trans actors all looked really good and feels almost like they were the real person at times. While I do appreciate Joynt doing his best to make this documentary artistically and engaging, but the movie becomes quite rough on the edges and it didn't feel really informative. It almost felt like if the participants were just best friends having conversations with no little to the main themes and purpose of the story.
Some of the interviews didn't feel like interviews but more like a conversation from a movie. Some of the things Joynt is trying to discuss kind of doesn't make any sense. It's a shame because there were some really good discussions and people being interviewed about the trans community and how media is alway interested about the topics of trans. But it's really doesn't do much and becomes kind of misinformed at times and boring. There are some good production and technical moments.
I honestly believe that if Joynt gave a more meaningful approach about this movie, then it would have been more interesting.
Rating: C+
This documentary is directed by Chase Joynt (Cool name) and it is about the media's ongoing fascination with trans people. With the film being shown through a talk show kind of format, it breathes into the life of six previously unknown stories from the archives of the UCLA Gender Clinic in the 1950s. The documentary is presented with reenactments and experimental fiction elements from actors to try and portray the exact moments that happened in the past. The make up from the trans actors all looked really good and feels almost like they were the real person at times. While I do appreciate Joynt doing his best to make this documentary artistically and engaging, but the movie becomes quite rough on the edges and it didn't feel really informative. It almost felt like if the participants were just best friends having conversations with no little to the main themes and purpose of the story.
Some of the interviews didn't feel like interviews but more like a conversation from a movie. Some of the things Joynt is trying to discuss kind of doesn't make any sense. It's a shame because there were some really good discussions and people being interviewed about the trans community and how media is alway interested about the topics of trans. But it's really doesn't do much and becomes kind of misinformed at times and boring. There are some good production and technical moments.
I honestly believe that if Joynt gave a more meaningful approach about this movie, then it would have been more interesting.
Rating: C+
Ponderous, Clumsy, and Lacking Insight
vivbrown4 December 2022
This is a weak documentary and an even worse experimental film. The focus on 1960s sociological cases of transgender people had lots of potential and could have potentially served as a powerful response to terrible representations of trans people in media. The problem is that the documentary mostly engages in ponderous, clumsy, and self-congratulatory naval gazing without yielding real insights or lessons that couldn't be gained from other, more engaging viewing. Sadly, this film doesn't work well either as an educational or experimental film. It takes a fairly familiar critical approach to archives and documentary through reflexive reenactments. But those reenactments are mostly awkward, especially in the writing and also because of some flat performances -- with the exception of successful acting from Angelica Ross and Zackary Drucker. The editing throughout the movie is also confusing and doesn't even give us stylistically meaningful confusion. This is a movie that works much better in the description than it does in its execution. I went to the opening weekend of the movie and had high hopes, but came away more bored than I expected given the topic.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
