This recent discussion around the so-called trans law has drawn significant attention for years, yet few voices carry as much scholarly weight as Paul B. Preciado. He stands among the foremost philosophers examining gender theories and sexuality, offering blunt observations about political language and its limits. He argues that many debates remain constrained within narrow vocabularies and bureaucratic frames, which can feel tiresome to those seeking deeper democratic engagement. His stance is clear: the phrase sexual difference should be removed from all administrative documents, a move he sees as a challenge to systemic discrimination. He notes that while identities such as Christian, gay, or Black should be acknowledged on a personal level, modern governance increasingly relies on standardized, visual-only criteria for bodies. This tension between recognition and regulation shaped his decision to create his latest cinematic work. [Cited: Preciado, public statements]
The film under discussion marks a turning point in Preciado’s career, encapsulating themes he has long pursued. It can be seen as a modern adaptation of Virginia Woolf’s 1928 novel about a transgender English noble, reimagined across four centuries. The work defies easy categorization, resisting traditional labels and classifications, and speaks to a form of cinema that some describe as non-binary. The piece sits at a crossroads of autobiography, political manifesto, literary essay, social activism, and meta-textual theater, translating Woolf’s narrative into a contemporary frame where the protagonist becomes a constellation of Orlando. [Cited: film notes]
In the filmmaker’s own account, the story moves through an ever-shifting landscape, reflecting a world in which multiple Orlandos coexist. A voiceover speaks of changing the course of history, while the film stages excerpts from Woolf’s text, reveals intimate scenes, and even includes a techno-fueled sequence that invites reflection on perception and power. Memorable lines, such as questions about who controls the mind, add humor and a critique of the rigid thinking that underpins sexist structures. The result is a narrative that blends wit with a serious critique of how society structures identity and difference. [Cited: production notes]
Regardless of how the film is categorized, the authorial intention centers on a major argument about Disphoria Mundi, a concept that extends beyond prior writings. The work is presented as a social, political, and sexual turning point born from the breakdown of long-standing patriarchal, racial, and institutional legitimations. The intended audience includes younger viewers who have already experienced transformations of identity and who are likely to explore these ideas more deeply as they mature. The project foregrounds a broader shift in storytelling practices, inviting audiences to reconsider the stories their societies tell about themselves. [Cited: critical commentary]
From a creative standpoint, the filmmaker describes a evolution in approach that goes beyond traditional philosophic or literary forms. Visual storytelling becomes essential in conveying complex ideas that text alone might not fully capture. It is not merely about translating a book into film; it is about offering a different pathway for interpretation, one that embraces a wide range of responses from viewers. The era the work depicts is filled with potential for multiple meanings, and the creator argues that there are countless valid ways to describe this historical moment. [Cited: interview excerpts]