The other day, I was rewatching Some Like It Hot. I first watched it in college, and back then, it was just another lighthearted comedy. The jokes were funny, Marilyn Monroe was dazzling, and the cross-dressing antics were a classic setup for laughs. But revisiting the movie in 2025—after studying queer themes and gender fluidity for a couple of years—hit me in a completely different way. Suddenly, it wasn’t just slapstick comedy, but a covert commentary on gender, sexuality, and identity. The more I looked, the more I realized just how much Some Like It Hot plays with the conventions of gender and sexuality, sometimes in subtle, but daring ways.

Made in 1959 but set in the Prohibition era of the 1920s, Some Like It Hot explores the world of gender performances, mistaken identities, and fluid attractions. The movie flirts with queer subtext, questioning the norms of sexuality and identity, even if it never quite goes all in. The cross-dressing of the two male leads—Joe (Tony Curtis) and Jerry (Jack Lemmon)—serves as more than just a comedic device and offers a subversive exploration of gender fluidity. And while it’s all wrapped in humor, there’s an underlying tension between how much the movie challenges stereotypes about gender and sexuality, while simultaneously reinforcing others. Let’s dive into some of the queer subtext and gender dynamics that make Some Like It Hot both a classic and complex work of cinema.

Also read: Performance and Uncovering Identities Hidden Behind Clothes

The Queer Play of Gender in “Some Like It Hot”

At its core, Some Like It Hot is a film about performing gender. Joe and Jerry’s transformation into women—Josephine and Daphne—isn’t just a disguise to escape from the mob; it’s a way to explore the idea that gender isn’t something inherent, but something that can be played with and performed. The film gives us clear commentary on how gender roles are, in many ways, constructed and subject to manipulation. Joe and Jerry are men who, when placed in a position where they must pass as women to avoid the mob, embrace their newfound personas with surprising ease. The humor here stems from their performances, but there’s something complex lurking beneath the surface.

This is where the queer analysis comes into play: at a time when cross-dressing was seen as a violation of gender norms, Joe and Jerry’s act of assuming the identities of women challenges the very notion that gender is static. While the film is primarily comedic, it subtly critiques the rigid structures of masculinity and femininity. By adopting women’s identities, Joe and Jerry momentarily escape the pressures of being “real men,” free to express themselves in ways that their original male characters couldn’t. The fact that they find this role-playing liberating, hints at the fluidity of gender, even if the film never explicitly recognizes it.

Also read: Queer Imaginations of Masculinities in Popular Media in 2021

One particularly interesting aspect is how Joe (as Josephine) quickly masters the art of being a woman. The film plays around with the idea that gender is performative and malleable. Joe’s transition from a man into a woman—and his success in this new identity—suggests that masculinity and femininity aren’t as fixed as society makes them out to be. He’s able to inhabit both roles with ease, shifting between them as needed.

Meanwhile, Jerry (as Daphne) inhabits his female role with a different energy. Daphne is more hesitant and awkward, but still manages to charm the rich Osgood. Daphne’s struggle is less about “passing” as a woman and more about navigating a society where his masculinity is constantly at odds with the femininity he’s performing. His growing bond with Osgood adds another layer of queer subtext—Osgood falls for Daphne without ever questioning her gender, reinforcing the idea that attraction can sometimes be based on the performance of gender rather than any inherent quality in the person. In a sense, Osgood’s attraction to Daphne is queer in itself; it challenges the notion that attraction is only valid when the biological sex matches the socially constructed gender.

The real queer tension though, emerges in the unspoken and playful nature of their interactions with each other and with the other characters. Joe and Jerry’s dual gender identities create a space where sexual and romantic attraction can transcend the binary constraints of gender. This fluidity—expressed in their newfound personas, their relationships with men and women, and the freedom they find in those assumed roles—suggests that the boundaries of gender are more porous than they appear. This is especially true given the time-period in which the film was made, where gender-nonconforming behavior was seen as both taboo and yet hidden in plain sight, such as in the work of drag artists.

Sugar: Gendered Stereotypes and the Material Girl

Marilyn Monroe’s character, Sugar Kane, is another plot-point in the movie where gender and queerness intersect in unexpected ways. On the surface, Sugar is the archetype of the “dumb blonde,” the object of desire, constantly on the lookout for a rich man to marry. She’s a talented musician but is often dismissed by the men around her as nothing more than eye candy. Her desperation to find a millionaire in Florida, to “get out of this lousy life,” reflects a common stereotype of women as being selfish, materialistic, and solely motivated by wealth and security.

Also read: Bottoms: An Inventive, Chaotic, Queer High School Comedy

But there’s a darker subtext to Sugar’s character. Her history of being mistreated by musicians reveals a more complex story—one of exploitation and abuse. The men around her don’t take her seriously, using her for her beauty and then discarding her when she’s no longer useful. This treatment mirrors the limitations placed on women during the 1920s and the 1950s. Sugar’s desire for a millionaire-husband isn’t just about greed—it’s about seeking security in a world where women’s value is often reduced to their physical appearance.

Sugar’s quest for a wealthy husband is ultimately framed as shallow, which feeds into the stereotype that women are selfish and opportunistic. Yet, at the same time, this portrayal is a critique of the system that forces women into these roles. The irony is that while Sugar is mocked for wanting financial independence through marriage, her desire for security speaks to the lack of options for the women of her time. It’s a commentary on how women, especially in the entertainment industry, were often forced to navigate relationships with men who didn’t care about them as individuals, but as commodities to be used.

Daphne and Osgood: Gender, Marriage, and Stereotypes

Perhaps the most absurd and telling moment in Some Like It Hot comes towards the end, when Daphne, who has been posing as a woman throughout the film, accepts a marriage proposal from Osgood. He proposes to Daphne after the big reveal that she’s actually a man. In true comedic fashion, Daphne simply shrugs it off and agrees to marry him, with a plan to divorce him later in lieu of a settlement.

Also read: When Marriage Doesn’t Make Sense

On one level, Daphne’s acceptance of the proposal plays into the stereotype of the “gold-digging woman,” someone who marries for money and status. But at a deeper level, this moment critiques the institution of marriage itself—particularly the transactional nature of gendered relationships. For women in the 1920s and 1950s, marriage was often the only viable route to financial security, and Daphne’s plan to divorce Osgood for a settlement reveals the way women were stereotyped as opportunistic and manipulative. However, in Daphne’s case, this plan is also her way of taking control of her own fate in a world where women’s autonomy was limited.

While this scene is played for laughs, it subtly interrogates the societal roles that both women and men were expected to play in marriage. Daphne’s acceptance of Osgood’s proposal, knowing full well that their marriage is a farce, highlights how both marriage and gender roles are performances. They are roles that can be exploited for personal gain. It’s a humorous yet critical commentary on the commodification of women’s bodies and desires in a patriarchal society.

Sugar’s Choice: Love Over Money

In the final act of the film, Sugar ultimately chooses Joe over his wealth—or lack thereof—because he’s the first man who has genuinely cared for her. She had been chasing after money and security for most of the film, but in the end, it’s the emotional connection that she shares with Joe that wins her over. This marks a shift from the stereotype of the materialistic woman who only cares about wealth. Sugar’s choice to prioritize love over money is a subtle critique of the gendered stereotype that women are only after financial security in marriage.

Sugar’s decision to choose Joe, who doesn’t have the wealth she originally sought, speaks to the idea that love, kindness, and care can be just as valuable, if not more, than material gain. It’s a rejection of the shallow expectations placed on women to marry for money, and instead, reaffirms the idea that women can, and often do, make relational decisions based on emotional fulfillment and in pursuit of human connection. In a way, Some Like It Hot gives Sugar the sense of agency that she’s been denied throughout the film.

Conclusion: The Queer Heart of “Some Like It Hot”

Some Like It Hot is a classic comedy, but it’s also a rich text for queer and gender analysis. From the fluidity of gender performance in Joe and Jerry’s drag personas to the exploration of love and materialism in Sugar’s character arc, the film is a fascinating—and at times, subversive—look at the performance of identity. While it stays within the comedic conventions of its time, it also slyly questions the rigid norms of gender and sexuality, offering a glimpse into a world where attraction, love, and identity can transcend the constraints of social norms. And that’s what makes it so timeless—even as it flirts with outdated stereotypes, it still manages to present a queer, playful vision of identity and love.