Over the years, scholars have commented on the close friendship between Troilus and Pandarus, some suggesting that there is something more or less “erotic” about their relationship. In articulating the implied homoeroticism of this relationship, scholars have left one methodological resource largely untapped: namely, film theory. Key interactions between Troilus and Pandarus in Book 1 can be read cinematically to elucidate the link between homoerotically charged visual dynamics and masculinity. By delineating unnarrated visual acts, one not only highlights the homoeroticism underlying the protracted encounter in Troilus's bedchamber, but also finds the unstable power relations between the two friends. This problematizes the concept of the gazer as active / “masculine” and the object of the gaze as passive / “feminine.” I am using “homoeroticism” here to refer to moments of heightened sensual (not necessarily sexual or reciprocal) attraction between intimate friends. In Chaucer's text, these homoerotic moments are inextricably linked with a disparity in the power one friend wields over the other. James Schultz rightly points out that “[t]he Middle Ages had no notion of sexual orientation,” and thus I make no claim that either Pandarus or Troilus is “homosexual,” “bisexual,” or “heterosexual.” However, these moments can be referred to, following Schultz's useful formulation, as “historical particulars,” against which we can set a binary arbitration such as active/passive. The sociohistorical particularity of homoeroticism, informed by fourteenth-century courtly society, is illustrated in specific scenes of intimate interactions between Troilus and Pandarus.