This is the Sunday Edition of Paging Dr. Lesbian. If you like this type of thing, subscribe, and share it with your friends. Upgrade your subscription for more. I was recently on a podcast talking about the movie Carol. You can listen here, if you want.

[Some spoilers ahead.]

It’s a dark and rainy night. Five teenage girls take refuge in a derelict house, now nicely lit with candles. The leader of the gang – an outcast with a shaggy haircut – removes her shirt and starts work on a stick-and-poke tattoo on her chest. The others look on in awe while a dreamy alt-rock song plays.

The scene in question is from the 1996 film “Foxfire,” an almost-cult classic that has mostly been forgotten about. “Foxfire” follows four 17-year-old girls who find themselves at the center of controversy when they attempt to take down a teacher who has been harassing his female students. The film invokes a Riot Grrrl sensibility both visually and sonically, while also pointing to the darkness from which the movement sprung. Angelina Jolie plays the film’s “bad girl” character, a role that seemingly played into the public perception of her at the time. The movie also tackles teenage queerness and lesbianism on both textual and subtextual levels. 

“Foxfire” is based on the book of the same name by Joyce Carol Oates and was directed by first-time director Annette Haywood-Carter. In the book, the action takes place in the 1950s in upstate New York, while the movie transplants the action to Portland, Oregon in the 1990s. The film’s setting emphasizes both the city’s lush greenery as well as its more industrial elements, further cementing the Riot Grrrl style invoked by the soundtrack and theme. Along with Angelina Jolie, who had not yet reached superstar status, the film also stars former model Jenny Shimizu, future rock star Jenny Lewis, Hedy Burress, and Sarah Rosenberg as the other members of the “gang.”

The film was considered a failure when it premiered in the 1990s. First off, it essentially bombed at the box office. Haywood-Carter told Willamette Week that the reason for this was a faulty distribution plan, which saw the film play for only a week at arthouse theaters. “[Foxfire] was supposed to be for teenagers,” he explained. “They didn’t go to arthouse theaters.” To make matters worse, the film was reviewed poorly, with a scathing review in Variety doing the most damage. “Joyce Carol Oates will be disappointed with the muddled screen version of “Foxfire,” the review begins. As a result of this perceived failure, Haywood-Carter didn’t make another feature film for 17 years. 

But perhaps there’s something worth re-assessing here. There’s something ultimately compelling about the film, as blundering as it can occasionally be. “Foxfire” follows Maddy (Burress), a high school senior living in Portland. Maddy is an artistic, independent-minded kid who roller skates around the halls, ignoring the vociferous threats of her principal. Maddy’s daily routine is interrupted by the arrival of a mysterious outsider, Legs (Jolie), who waltzes into Maddy’s science class and wreaks havoc.

Legs’ entrance is nothing short of cinematic. The first shot we see of her is her chunky black boots getting out of a car. The second time we see her is when she picks up the switchblade she’s dropped on the floor. The third time, we finally see her face – a shaggy haircut, enormous, observant eyes, and a ‘don’t fuck with me’ attitude. Legs is clearly a rebel, in more ways than one. She tends to perplex those around her, especially because of her gender presentation. The security guard inside of the school calls her “young man,” and Goldie’s stepmother calls her “a girl, or whatever.” Maddy describes the moment of Legs’ arrival in almost apocalyptic terms: “I felt it before I knew it.”

The other girls are Violet (Rosenberg), a sexually confident girly-girl, Rita (Lewis), a shy sweetheart, and Goldie (Shimizu), a loner with a serious drug problem. The girls happen to meet when they discover that their science teacher, Mr. Buttinger (John Diehl), has been sexually harassing both Rita and Violet. Legs is outraged by this – she abhors abuse of any kind, especially when it’s perpetrated by those in power – and convinces them to get back at Mr. Buttinger so he never does anything like that again. Their confrontation leads to a fight with Mr. Buttinger, after which the four girls (Legs doesn’t actually attend the school) get suspended for two weeks. With nothing to do, the newly formed group starts hanging out in an abandoned house by the river. 

The most exemplary scene in the film is the moment when the girls solidify their bond with one another. When Maddy complains aloud about the fact that the principal didn’t let her retrieve her RISD portfolio from school before they were suspended, Legs hatches a plan. They break into the school that night to get it back, but Goldie accidentally sets off the fire alarm in the process by lighting up a joint. They escape by the skin of their teeth and safely make it back to their lair. 

Legs sits down in front of the candles they have spread out on the floor and tells the girls she wants to do something to commemorate this night. She carefully gets out her tattoo kit and removes her shirt, much to the surprise of the others. She then proceeds to tattoo a small flame on her chest, “because it nourishes, and it also destroys if you don’t respect it.” The camera slowly pans over the other girls’ faces as they watch, transfixed. Perhaps they are each enchanted for different reasons, or maybe it’s the same for all of them. The Mazzy Star song “Into Dust” plays during the scene, giving it an even more ethereal, almost sacred quality. After Legs finishes her own tattoo she tattoos the other girls as well, all of whom besides Rita get topless alongside her.

It’s certainly true that the scene illustrates the inherent homoeroticism of same-gender friendships, regardless of whether or not queerness actually resides inside each girl individually. But it’s also obvious that the pull between Legs and Maddy is different than it is with any of the other girls. Maddy’s gaze at Legs – and vice versa – is enormously loaded. All in all, the scene is simultaneously erotic and innocent, two terms that are not as incompatible as they might seem. The reason it is the best scene in the movie is not simply because it depicts Angelina Jolie topless while a Mazzy Star song plays, but rather because it artfully illustrates the intimacy of girlhood and the pull of female desire in both platonic and sexual ways.

After the incomparable tattoo scene, several other things happen. Violet teaches Rita about sex in a grocery store and they put a condom on a zucchini. They run around town causing chaos while Patti Smith’s “Dancing Barefoot” plays. They become folk heroes among the girls at their school and gain a reputation for being badasses. Dana (Dash Mihok), the star of the football team that Mr. Buttinger coaches, tries to attack Maddy. Legs threatens him with a switchblade and they steal his car. Legs gets sent to juvie and Goldie starts living out of a drug den. Things generally start spiraling out of control. 

During all of this, Legs and Maddy grow closer. Sitting on the roof one evening, Maddy asks Legs, “If I told you that I loved you, would you take it the wrong way?” She tries and fails to explain herself. “It’s just that…I’m not…And you’re…” It’s the closest Maddy and Legs ever get to discussing the nature of their relationship, and they don’t exactly get anywhere. Legs tells Maddy about her mom dying, and Maddy hints that she might come with Legs when she leaves town. “Sometimes the unknown will disappoint you,” Legs responds, talking as much about herself as she is about the journey. 

Maddy caresses Legs’ face in the moonlight and Legs becomes impossibly soft, a far cry from the swaggering smart-ass we first met. Legs is always a bit softer around Maddy; she often goes quiet, waiting for Maddy to react. At the end of the film, Maddy is forced to choose if she wants to go with Legs or stay behind. Legs looks more hopeful – and more youthful – than she has in the entire film. When it’s clear that Maddy won’t be coming with her, her face falls, and she barks out a laugh while heavy tears fall from her eyes. “You’re in my heart, Maddy,” she says, ever the romantic vagabond.

My interest in “Foxfire” lies as much in its extra-textual elements as it does in the film itself. Angelina Jolie, the star of the film, is one of the most interesting celebrities of our time, and the film plays into her star persona in an illuminating way. Legs is a tragic queer heroine (or anti-hero), and this distinctive rebel attitude spills over into most of Jolie’s roles in the ‘90s. Gia Carangi from Gia can certainly be understood this way, as can Lisa from Girl, Interrupted, the role that won Jolie her Oscar. Even Hackers and The Bone Collector see Jolie playing stubbornly defiant characters who are seemingly without any worldly attachments.

Roles like these are often seen as analogous to who Jolie really is (or was) as a person. She had a reputation for being “wild” in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, a reputation that in part had to do with the perception of her sexuality. There’s the famous blood vial controversy, of course, but there’s also the fact that Jolie is openly bisexual and started dating Jenny Shimizu after they met on the set of “Foxfire,” a connection that adds another (queer) layer to the film. Jolie has always been a sexually uninhibited actor, which unfortunately has also meant that viewers and critics alike see her first and foremost through the lens of sexuality. 

According to Haywood-Carter, Jolie initially wanted Shimizu’s role and had to be convinced to take the role of Legs. Haywood-Carter also described Jolie as “a bit of a wildass” on set, recalling the time that Jolie was practicing the scene on top of the bridge without a harness and had to be told to come down. Tales like this make it seem like Jolie was destined for a role like Legs, regardless of whether a few anecdotes really tell the whole story of a person. 

Negative reviews of the movie like the one in Variety tend to note that the film trivializes its important subject matter because of its heavy-handed directorial style. But it’s the easy – yet knotty – intimacy between the five young women that really sells the film, cheesy electric guitar score be damned. Haywood-Carter calls the film “a call and a cry to a culture that was abusive and dangerous for teenage girls,” noting that the 90’s were far from an idyllic time for young people, especially young women. Indeed, the quintessential cultural product of the 1990s, the Riot Grrrl movement, was not simply an aesthetic musical choice, but rather was a forceful response to the overt, oftentimes violent misogyny of the era. It wasn’t just girl power for funsies, though it sometimes gets remembered as such. 

One of the most interesting aspects of the film is its depiction of queerness. Because queerness is often so closely associated with language and ‘claiming’ space, especially in contemporary culture, the sapphic elements of the film are often overlooked. But just because it remains mostly unspoken doesn’t mean it’s not there. It’s pretty clear that the film and the characters therein understand Legs as a lesbian – whether she would call herself that or not – and it’s also clear that Maddy loves her, although Maddy’s not quite sure what that love means. It’s also true that there’s an intimacy between all five girls that can easily be understood as homoerotic, though this element is never specifically noted. Indeed, homophobia is suspiciously absent from the film, though one could read Legs’ ostracization as an issue of queer prejudice. 

Maddy’s confusion about her feelings for Legs is not a dismissal of queerness, but rather an expression of it. Bisexuality remains unspoken – a common occurrence, sadly – but it’s not invisible. The quiet moments that Legs and Maddy share together are loaded with meaning despite (or perhaps because of) all that remains unsaid. On the other hand, lesbianism – as portrayed by Legs – is figured as tragic in this instance; a love that is unable to find purchase. In another context, Legs’ heartbreak might come off as pitiful, her swagger a caricature of bravado, but in Jolie’s capable hands, she becomes a deeply lovable anti-heroine. She’s a lesbian James Dean, with the charming smirk and leather jacket to match. Together, they inhabit a lesbian love story that’s in its ember stage – the warmth is all there, if not the fiery follow-through. 

In the end, we might situate “Foxfire” somewhere on the spectrum between a hidden gem and a rightfully valued B-movie, though I’m more inclined to define it as the former. There’s something there, even if a lot of that something belongs to a really good Mazzy Star song and Angelina Jolie’s unruly charm. Candle-lit stick-and-pokes, anyone?