Moonlight (2016) is a very good film. The storyline, the color, the acting, the direction all combine to make Moonlight a film definitely worth seeing. Additionally, the sentiment that the cast and crew have been able to evoke in viewers makes Moonlight a very significant film. Nonetheless, the singularity that has been conveyed by the reception of Moonlight raises a number of questions for me as a viewer of queer films. Reviewers wrote of the film as uncommonly graceful, centering touch, and an urgent social document all deemed deeply special and even a first for Black film and Black queer film in particular (Scott 2016; Sims 2016; Crawley 2017). First, the film’s overwhelming reception that seems to suggest a singular Black gay experience, one that is really only a partial African American gay experience, should give pause. And second, the evocation of a specific AfroCuban Miami experience as a “universal” African American and thus Black (queer) male experience should raise further questions about Moonlight’s reception and its singularity in the canon of Black queer filmmaking. Thus I want to begin with a certain kind of dissembling about Moonlight because I think that its reception, its promotion, and the rhetoric around its singularity provoke important questions for Black queer criticism and Black queer theoretical and conceptual debates, especially those in film studies. I am interested and concerned about how the overwhelming reception of Moonlight has been positioned as offering us something new about Black men, and in particular Black queer men’s intimacies and masculinities. I am concerned that Moonlight’s reception begins in an assumed pathology and culminates in a suggestion that the film works against such pathology. In short, the film’s reception is steeped in stereotypes about Black men — especially queer Black men — and viewers celebrate the film because these stereotypes do not fully come to fruition. What has puzzled me about Moonlight’s reception is that much of what has been suggested as being new appears otherwise to me. What I mean is that the arc

中文翻译：

---

月光的必备公司

月光（2016）是一部非常好的电影。故事情节、色彩、表演、导演都结合在一起，使月光成为绝对值得一看的电影。此外，演员和工作人员能够唤起观众的情绪使月光成为一部非常重要的电影。尽管如此，接受《月光》所传达的奇异性对我作为酷儿电影观众提出了许多问题。评论家认为这部电影异常优雅、居中，是一份紧急的社会文件，都被认为非常特别，甚至是黑人电影和黑人酷儿电影的第一部（斯科特 2016 年；西姆斯 2016 年；克劳利 2017 年）。首先，这部电影压倒性的反响似乎暗示了一种独特的黑人同性恋经历，实际上只是部分非裔美国人的同性恋经历，应该暂停。其次，将特定的 AfroCuban Miami 体验作为“普遍的”非裔美国人和黑人（酷儿）男性体验的唤起，应该会引发更多关于月光的接受及其在黑人酷儿电影制作经典中的独特性的问题。因此，我想从对月光的某种伪装开始，因为我认为它的接受、推广以及围绕其奇异性的言论引发了黑人酷儿批评和黑人酷儿理论和概念辩论的重要问题，尤其是电影研究中的问题。我对月光的压倒性接受如何被定位为向我们提供有关黑人男性的新事物，特别是黑人酷儿男性的亲密关系和阳刚之气，感兴趣并感到担忧。我担心月光的接受始于一种假设的病态，并最终导致电影反对这种病态的建议。简而言之，这部电影的反响充斥着对黑人男性——尤其是酷儿黑人——的刻板印象，而观众为这部电影欢呼，因为这些刻板印象并没有完全实现。让我对 Moonlight 的接受感到困惑的是，很多被认为是新的东西在我看来并不相同。我的意思是弧线 让我对 Moonlight 的接受感到困惑的是，很多被认为是新的东西在我看来并不相同。我的意思是弧线 让我对 Moonlight 的接受感到困惑的是，很多被认为是新的东西在我看来并不相同。我的意思是弧线