I don't think that the members of a film crew necessarily detract from the queerness of a film that is meant to be queer. When I watch the film, I understand that the actors are portraying a certain person and the director has a certain goal, so I don't really think, "Well the actors aren't even queer so this isn't even real." That's what acting is all about. That is the purpose of films; to present a story that isn't real, even if it is depicting a story that happened in real life. This film proves that even movies that are based on true events, still are not entirely real because in the end, they are movies and are up to the interpretation of the actors and director.
Having said that, I do believe that the queerness of the film crew can ADD to the queerness of the film, especially in the case of the director. It can be easier to depict something when you've already experienced it. A heterosexual person who does not fully understand queer culture may have a hard time making the movie seem authentic, while a queer director would be able to add personal experience to the film to make it seem truer to real life. I don't think a heterosexual director could possibly make films like John Waters does, but if they ever did I don't think the director's heterosexual orientation would detract from the film.
I feel like the actualization of Juliet and Pauline's relationship walked a very fine line between queer and not queer, and it is hard to say whether or not the actors' sexualities would have swayed it one way or the other. There were many queer aspects about their relationship, especially in forms of excess. The way they talked throughout the entire movie seemed deliberately overacted, but maybe I'm giving them too much credit. Also, they were constantly shrieking and laughing and screaming, especially in their fantasy land. And every time they seemed to enter their fantasy land there was a lot of disorientation with the camera angles and movements and them constantly running through the woods and twirling around and being crazy.
It is interesting to learn that Pauline claims they never had a sexual relationship. To me, that detracts from the queerness of the film far more than the film crew does. While Jackson employed techniques to bring an element of fantasy and excess to the film, he may not have been doing that to make the film queer. Perhaps to him, the only thing queer about the whole film was the sex scenes between the two girls.
I found your thoughts on this film very interesting and would like to comment especially on the first paragraph in your discussion of whether or not the straight actors in the film detracted from the overall "Queerness" of the film. You brought up a great point in saying that even movies based on true stories aren't totally real, and I would like to expand upon this a bit. The most interesting thing about "true story" films is that they offer no true insight into what actually happened in real life. In fact, "true story" films are nothing but an interpretation of a story told about an event that happened. To put it simply, more often than not, these "True stories" are quite far from the truth. But does that dissipate their relevance? I would say no. What this film does brilliantly is it that it centers itself inside of a dream world, explicitly telling the audience that what occurs may or may not be real. In this sense, this film remains true to its medium, expressing it as such. But often times, "true story" films can employ insidious techniques to tell a story that didn't necessarily happen, even though it was BASED on a true story.