NZIFF Round Table Reviews: I Want Your Sex

REVIEW | NZIFF |  ISSUE TEN | ISOLATION

This is part of a series of roundtable discussions and extended dialogues conducted by Ricky Lai (@rickthelai), Trevor Pronoso (@CleverGurl), Madeline Smith (@prime4illusion), and Caeden Tipler (@ctipler) on films that have premiered at NZIFF 2026.

The following exchange is between Trevor, Madeline and Caeden on Gregg Araki's latest film, I Want Your Sex.

I Want Your Sex (2026)

dir. Gregg Araki

USA, 90 mins

Trevor: Gregg really is a filmmaker of all time (derogatory). I know this man makes cynical movies, but I think he's now doing this from a place of comfort rather than from an actual sense of (queer) solidarity or sympathy towards young people. Or put it another way, queer is mainstream, thus it is subsumed as a new aesthetic for capital. Queers tormenting straight people not by dismantling heteronormative prejudices, but by weaponising precocity and 'sincerity' (I personally can't find a better term atm), traits that rally against the ragebaiting, semi-ironic, semi-serious logic of capitalist expression (any form of social engineering) because being an annoying snarky cunt has stopped being a form of camp expression and/or a psychological defense mechanism but has backslided into becoming a disposition of exploitation. Gregg is a "filmmaker of all time" if you believe capitalism is here to stay for "all time". No past or history, just an ever-present black hole of consumption (Zoomers in a 70s mid-century modern living room talking about their sadomasochistic Millennial boss, made by a GenX filmmaker). Gregg is a realist like that (though I personally would say politically lazy).

Madeline: I agree that it's a deeply cynical movie and in a way that feels much more resigned than radical. It's also a much more heterosexual Gregg Araki movie than the film labelled as "a heterosexual Gregg Araki movie". I think to find some level of thematic/political merit in the film, it's more compelling to read it as a heteropessimist work than as a celebration of sex positivity in the face of Zoomer puritanism. The latter is what it's been marketed as, and it's the view Araki has been pushing in interviews. But even as someone with a pretty strong personal investment in kink, I think it really doesn't make a very good case. I found pretty much no erotic value in the film at all; the central relationship is devoid of any kind of intimacy, it doesn't conform to any kind of boundaries necessary for consensual kink practice, and much of it upholds heteronormative ideas. And while I'm not here to judge movie characters as if they were real people (a lot of my favourite movies regarding BDSM relationships also involve very unhealthy/unethical dynamics), it does feel very at odds with the marketing. The text itself is very much aware of this stuff—a really obvious example being Elliot's fantasy where he is simultaneously being whipped as Erika talks about making sandwiches and having kids with him. The use of dildos, strap-ons and anal in general is also very heteronormative. For Elliot, it's not something to be enjoyed; it's all emasculation and humiliation, and that kind of context for the practice can only rly uphold a view of anal/a male being penetrated as the inferior, devaluing version of 'proper' heterosexual sex.

Again, I find it hard to believe that Araki has so little self-awareness that he'd think the vision of straight sex in this film is truly radical/queer. I think what he's trying to get at is the idea of trading in one kind of empty puritanical heterosexuality with an equally empty sex-positive/kinky one. But even at this level of heteropessimist critique, I feel these points are pretty obvious and don't offer the genuine provocation of The Doom Generation's (1995) climax. In that film, you feel genuine hurt and anger in his imagery. Whereas here, there isn't much going on other than vague condescension.

Caeden: Really interesting to read both of your thoughts on this film, since I had a completely different perspective! Probably shaped by the fact that this was my first Araki film, so I didn't have the history with his other work nor any expectations.

I didn't think the film was meant to be a queer story at all. One of the characters outright rejects this notion very early on in the film when he tells Cooper Hoffman's character that he's not queer unless he sucks dick (and he has not). It's only a queer film insofar as it's set in the world of contemporary art, where you can reasonably expect to find many openly proud queer people. Maybe there's also a discussion to be had about heterosexuality vs heteronormativity because while it is certainly the former, there is an argument that it's not the latter (even if Hoffman's character expresses some very heteronormative ideas). If this film is meant to be a response to how puritanical Gen Z is about sex (as marketed), then it probably makes the most sense to focus on a young straight (or questioning) man, as he is far less likely to be comfortable in his sex life compared to a young gay man. I listened to an interview with Araki in which he said he sees himself in both Olivia Wilde's and Hoffman's characters. Some of Wilde's lines are taken verbatim from his previous interviews, with Hoffman's character being drawn straight from Araki's early-20s experiences as an aspiring creative. The character design even matches, down to the pierced ear and hand tattoos. This made me think about the film's portrayal of the push-and-pull between opposing personalities, and how that can reflect who we are vs how we want to be seen. Or even ourselves at one age versus another.

Trevor: I guess this film hetero-ed too close to the sun to even consider 'Zoomer puritanism' a legitimate concern. I personally don't buy it (if anything, there's an argument to be made that Zoomer sexuality is starting to move towards the virtual rather than the corporeal) If it's true that Erika and Elliot really are Gregg's fictionalised personalities, I'm even more concerned about his outlook of sexual relationships of the future if he still can't shake off that pessimism that his sexual identities will just bowl over into muted tolerance if it becomes too great a threat to their professional/capitalist personas. The solution to not being abused by your boss is to start a podcast lmao (or adopt Erika's opportunist/individualist attitude to exploit public opinion and align it with your business narrative). It doesn't matter if it's homo or hetero; Gregg thinks sex will not survive being mutual or reciprocal in the future. It's always at the expense of someone else (Charli's fake orgasming, Zap routinely kicking out Elliot for his orgies, Elliot—being the idiot he is—inviting Apple for a threesome). He's spreading eagle his GenX tendencies again.