Queenmaker: The Making of an It Girl

This seems to be a total vanity project - done by I have no idea, with the viewpoint of I have no idea.

A few reviewers have said this isn't what they expected. That's exactly what this is! Not what anyone expects. You cannot figure it out since it isn't any one thing.

It does follow and praise Tinsley Mortimer a LOT. She seems to be the It Girl on that side.

Then there is the Other side of It. Now THAT's the real It Girl.

The story behind her is as fuzzy as all the other It Girls. (The ones we all know if we are watching this "documentary") I actually wanted to know more about her and how she got to where she was.

Unfortunately, as with the rest of this "doc", that story, too, is lacking.

HOWEVER - I most certainly wish her well.

And that's my fault. I should've read the description provided here on IMDB instead of trusting the trailer I saw on Hulu.

I thought I was getting a documentary about the rise of the late 90s/early 00s "It" girls of NYC. We did get several minutes of that primarily focused on Tinsley Mortimer, who I really didn't know that much about back in the day. I was glad they didn't devote that much time to Paris Hilton, because I've seen enough of her story already, so it was good to learn about one of her peers. I kept waiting for the documentary to start dissecting the forces at work to make these girls happen in detail, but it never happened. Then it suddenly shifts to the story about the kid behind a blog about these It girls and their milieu.

This person's story (and I won't give away spoilers about their identity) just wasn't very interesting. They themselves came across as sad, depressed, insecure and still in search of their own identity. As one of their own friends observed, this person had their own reality, which didn't necessarily coincide with everyone else's. I don't mind an unreliable narrator in fiction, but prefer to avoid them in real life.

Overall, I felt the documentary could've been so much more. New York Magazine just did a big article with multiple covers about the "It Girls" of times past. I was hoping for something more about the history and the impact of It girls on the culture.

As "Queenmaker" (2023 release; 93 min) opens, we get an It Girl 101 mini-history lesson, which inevitably leads up to Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Along the way, we learn that publicists have a great deal of power, as well as the inevitable blods that start popping up,,, At this point we are 10 minutes into the documentary.

Couple of comments: first, please do not confuse this with the South Korean TV series of the same name that appeared on Netflix not long ago. Second, this US documentary is directed by multimedia artist Zackary Drucker. Third, and this is the most important comment: this documentary is really two-films-into-one: the first one last a good one-third of the documentary, and gives a straight up overview of the New York It Girl universe and all that it entails; the second one runs the remainder of the film and examines who the creator was behind the influential NY It Girl blog called Park Avenue Peerage. The New York Times then drops the bomb when it identifies the person behind the blog. I won't say another word. Just watch. How these two separate movies are stuck into one is a bit of a headscratcher to be honest. I literally was about to abandon the film altogether as I was not interested in the It Girl scene. Turns out the movie is about some else altogether. Which brings me to my last, but not least, comments: the title of the documentary, as shown in the film's opening credits, is "Queenmaker", nothing more, nothing less. It's not "Queenmaker: The Making of an It Girl", as noted here on IMDb and many other sites. This is really annoying. Like we need to be explained what the movie title REALLY means. We are not dumb. We can figure it out. (This also happened with the recent Michael J Fox documentary, which is titled per the movie's opening and closing credits "STILL", but for whatever reason, the movie is now known everywhere as "Still: A Michael J Fox Movie". Stop it already, and show some respect for the moviemakers decision on the actual movie title.)

"Queenmaker" started airing on Hulu recently. I had read a positive review of it in the New York Times last week, and that was enough for me to want to check it out. If you are in the mood for a documentary that takes an unexpected turn left, and then keeps going even more off road, I'd suggest you check it out and draw your own conclusion.

The onslaught of negative engagement the distribution network is placing on this film is noted, but let's get to the crux of it all... it's magic

There's a story within a story here, one fantabulously more interesting than the necromacy of the early-00s It Girl era that dominates the first half. Not that I'm not here for a Gawker post mortem, but what could be ground for a really in-depth look at a very specific scene which emerged alongside a new form of surveillance and monetisation thereof fades into something else... rather than revel in the weeds we seek to learn and understand its creator, maker, Morgan. This someone else is what you can only see in the title once you read it through the prism of this deeply enriching interior story, of a plucky crestive with a gift for writing, obsessional focus, and fabulist tendencies, who infiltrated an alien world and made its leading swans dance their greatest dance. Kudos to Morgan Rose and to Zackary the director and fellow viewers disjointed by the internet feedback to this rather brilliant character study on a clearly unusual soul and woman.

This so-called "documentary" is probably used by counter intelligence personnel to invoke psychological torture on prisoners of war.

Apart from disjointed story, there is a lot of things that would irritate anyone: bad editing, non-existent directing, a back drop of a wannabe "it" maker who wouldn't be able to make even a voodoo doll. This was long, useless tv-product.

The most annoying thing was this Morgan person, who does his best to be as pretentious as possible.

This person definitely lives in his own little world that has nothing to do with reality.

I have only one question to the people who funded this: don't you wish you just burned your money?