Queenmaker: The Making of an It Girl

I saw the trailer on Hulu and thought it would be a fun deep dive into what the trailer & title of the movie called it, 'The making of an IT girl'. I was excited to watch it and revisit that time in the early 2000's when pop culture was OBSESSED with socialites, heiresses, and debutants. The first 1/3 of the movie delivered on that, focusing specifically on Tinsley Mortimer who despite always seeing her name and pictures in magazines & blogs, I was pretty unfamiliar with at that time. It shed some light on how she & other 'It' girls of that era made their mark in society and the media and all that goes on to get into and stay in the spotlight; From going to Diet Doctors in order to fit into designer sample sizes, getting a publicist, interviewing people who wrote about these girls or helped craft their image and brand etc. So far so good, and then the movie took a hard left and went into the life of a then anonymous blogger who wrote about these socialites. I initially thought it was a little side story that would help segue and tie everything together but it really didn't. The rest of the film is about the blogger, literally. There were parts that connected the bloggers world to that of the socialites he wrote about but the majority of it felt irrelevant to the film and unnecessary. Honestly I was very confused about what I watching, I had to double check that it was still the same documentary and that I hadn't accidentally changed it. Towards the end it dips back in to Tinsley very briefly and gives a vague description of her "downfall" which really wasn't a big deal as much as it was a change in the times. I wish the filmmakers would have dug deeper into her life and her fall from grace and how perspectives have shifted from then to now. They didn't, it was very surface level shallow. Again most of the focus being on the blogger from who he was then to today. Overall, the trailer & description was straight up false advertising, it's 2 films and 1 but only one of them is what's being advertised. The documentary was very disappointing and underwhelming, a choppy & confusing mess that had me scratching my head wondering why Tinsley Mortimer even agreed to be in this and asking myself wtf did I just watch?

At first you think you're going to learn about the media obsession with NYC socialites in the 2010s, which I find interesting. It starts off OK seeming to be an overview of how people like Paris Hilton and pals blew up on the scene. I was expecting to hear more about all those girls and who they really were behind the parties and clothes. There are some interesting characters who share their stories in the first 40 mins. But that's all tossed in the garbage because apparently the Director didn't have a real vision for the story. The focus swiftly turns into being all about a striver from the Midwest who gains a brief entre into the NY gossip journalism scene. Things take a very unexpected turn from there, Involving theft, drugs, tons of plastic surgery, a gravity defying boob job, and hair as straight as an iron. It's not as interesting as it sounds.

Some of the facts seem distorted. All in all a few bad things went down, and people were hurt. But no socialites were harmed in the making of this movie. Bottom line it's not worth 90 minutes of runtime.

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.

I think Morgan is really pretty. I follow her on social media and she looks like an ephemeral goddess or like an exotic Asian Barbie doll.

I don't know why everybody else is stuck on being "misled" or this being two docs in one... I can't imagine how Morgan might feel with all this negative feedback, especially considering she's trans (men being "misled" liking her only later figuring out she presented differently before; the two in one concept, best of both worlds ts trope, etc She comes across as really thoughtful and well put together.

Maybe people are daft or are just secret Marxists because the synopsis and previews for the film clearly indicate some type of unmasking... not a deep dive into socialites or the early 2000's, that was just a jumping point for the audience to meet Morgan where she www at 17, and nothing more.... I mean for all the gripes I've read why did you people even watch the whole thing only to trash it because it doesn't compare to some 2 min trailer that has images of Hilton ad nauseam?

I agree the storytelling is kinda murky. Zackary Drucker's previous works always reveal a betrayal of the subject... they always end up like an emperor with no clothes... why she would constantly misgender Morgan and make the crux of the movie this "reveal" is... beyond me.

I used to follow PAP and James and the kid has been in transition for l two decades. This whole judging her thing is stale and I see the movie for what it is: a flawed portrayal of a beautiful brown girl who had to be framed by white blonde women and (what seems like) bashing by her friend (singular: one friend) and people assuming she's delusional, mentally unwell and all sorts of accusations... just to have her story told and they never told her story really. That's where the movie loses me and us.

I hope Morgan writes a book about herself or starts a tv series. I'd read or watch. Time for her story.