Part 1
“No… that’s [Stonewall] where it all changed,” Richard Barrios says in relation to the discussion of the significant shift in Queer Cinema in the 1970s and 1980s. (12)
Since the advent of film, the portrayal of gays and lesbians has continued to evolve and change. Often, film has been representative of how mainstream society views homosexuality. It is also important to remember that before the early 1970s homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Conventions in film of how to portray a gay man and lesbian woman were quickly developed in order to indicate gays and lesbians in silent film. Early conventions were created solely for laughs, and traits like cross-dressing were early established as indicative of a gay character. In silent films, gay men were indicated by extreme effeminate characteristics. Effeminate equaled gay, according to Richard Barrios, and according to him, it is difficult to determine whether or not these representations can ever be viewed as healthy or harmful. (24) In contrast, gay women were generally depicted as unfeminine and unrefined. Same sex-couples, however, where not shown in these silent films. According to Barrios, it was completely safe to show a single gay character because the main point was to show them as being absurd and ludicrous in comparison to the ‘straight’ characters. Same-sex couples were, however, were dangerous and frightening to be shown. (26) With the introduction of sound into film, the conventions of portraying queer characters began to shift. Some of the more overt characteristics of a queer character were toned down a little bit because things could be heard rather than just seen. A perceived off-handed comment could often have a double-meaning that could be interpreted as gay. With the popularity of musicals, a large and significant role for gay men was created in the cinema. Films remained fairly free, frank, and fun in their representation of gays. (56) This however ended when in 1934, film codes were put into place to dictate and determine the morality of film. Positive portrayals, or even non-negative portrayals, of ‘sexual deviants’ were in no way moral by conservative standards. The film noir signified another shift in the portrayal of gays in film, particularly the portrayal of lesbians with the introduction of the femme fatale. The entire noir movement was in part concerned with how the lack of stable men around due to war would effect the mentality of women in general. The traditional femme fatale, while maintaining her femininity, takes on many roles normally portrayed by men, like the role of the aggressor. This, according to Barrios and other film scholars, was indicative of being a lesbian. As the country began to become settled into a post-WWII society, the codes became looser and looser. Distinct gay characters were introduced, but these characters were always portrayed as ill or villains of a sort. Particular stereotypes of queer people were established, like the idea of the sissy and the butch.
All of these elements of early cinema began to lay a blueprint for what would become Queer Cinema. But the resonating catalyst for change in the portrayal of gays and lesbians in cinema came in the form of two occurrences not directly related to cinema. The first would be the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The Stonewall incident was connected to regular raids by police officers in major cities of gay bars. These raids were a regular part of life for gays and lesbians during those times, but the Stonewall Riots were particularly violent and brutal. Police brutally attacked anyone in close vicinity of the bar, be they gay men, lesbian women, or a casual street wanderer. This was a watershed occurrence that ignited the queer community into action against the prejudices they faced regularly. It’s also important because it displayed to the rest of society the brutality faced by gays and lesbians regularly. This humanized what was foreign to much of mainstream, American society at the time. Now, in discussions I have had with friends about the Stonewall riots, the validity of whether it truly affected change within queer depictions was raised. My response is that it is still greatly important to the changes in queer representations in film. In order for any real change to occur in film, there first has to be a shift in the morality and ethics of mainstream society. To even be willing to look at positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in films, the idea that gays are only disturbed deviants and monsters must be lost. The Stonewall Riots showed the members of the queer community of victims rather than villains. This was important because it allowed for the facilitation of discussion on the value of sexuality in film. The second occurrence that was a great catalyst for change in the portrayal of gays and lesbians was homosexuality being removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) by the American Psychiatric Society. With homosexuality no longer considered a mental disorder, it was difficult to justify images of gays as only mentally ill, sexual deviants. According to Barrios, these two occurrences created an ‘open season’ of sorts for portrayals of gays in film.
Part2
Maedchen in uniform
Considered one of the first feature-films with lesbianism as its central theme, German import Maedchen in Uniform is an intriguing story of love and controversy. The sexuality implied in the film is not the only issue introduced. It depicts/implies a possible romantic relationship between a teacher and her student. Though Barrios states that the film was released in 1933, it was actually released in 1931 in Europe and 1932 in the States. (imdb.com) For a film of the 1930s, the depiction of the relationship between 14-year old Manuela and her teacher is quite frank. For that matter, Manuela does not appear to be the only student enamored with the teacher. All of the girls practically swoon when the teacher is around and seek her attention. The question of sexuality only seems to come into play when Manuela makes her affection for the teacher known. I think this plays to the idea that if homosexuality is swept under the rug, out of site, out of mind, it is not a real issue. Homosexuality is still something many people don’t understand. Things that people don’t understand often become scary, and fears are easier to hide than face. This line of thinking has thread itself throughout cinematic history, influencing how gays and lesbians are depicted, and still even occurs in modern depictions of gay relationships.
"You show me a happy homosexual and I’ll show you a gay corpse,” are the words uttered by a character in the movie The Boys in the Band. Now though the movie is in no way related to The Children’s Hour, the quote still holds a powerful truth for the film. After butchering his first attempt at adapting Lillian Hellman’s play with These Three, William Wyler attempted to adapt The Children’s Hour a second time in 1963. The film intentionally pushed the issues of lesbianism, issues that These Three attempted to avoid, in order to challenge the Production Code’s ban on gay content. It worked. According to Barrios, “Wyler’s ‘authentic’ remake of The Children’s Hour is usually given the most credit for the eventual code amendment.” It is ironic that, according to the excerpts Barrios’ provides, originally the implied lesbianism in the movie did not draw much controversy or water for the critics. Many seem to have seen the story as both outdated and irrelevant. Regardless of how critics at the time saw it, the conventions put into place by the film continue to arise in many movies featuring lesbians. First, it introduces the idea that sexual orientation is something you should feel guilty about. The amount of shame and contempt Dobie seems to have for herself over her feelings for Karen is truly heart-breaking to watch. Dobie killing herself sets up a pattern that also continues to follow many representations of gays and lesbians in films today- they have to die. There deaths are also often viewed as justified deaths, and therefore reinforce stereotypes mainstream society has on how gays and lesbians function in the world.The Haunting (1963)
Uploaded by finalgirl
In looking at the evolution of Queer Cinema, it is interesting to look at how films that focus on lesbians and films that focus on gay men have changed. For a time both portrayals stuck to many of the same conventions, particularly that the homosexual had to die a justified or understandable death. But as the eighties became a defining decade in gay culture, especially considering the AIDS crisis, the depiction of gay men in films became much more multi-faceted. Suddenly, gay men were not only a source of derision or laughter, but also a figure of empathy. Granted, many of the men still died in the end, but often times they were portrayed more as a victim than anything else. As the depiction of gay men evolved though, the portrayal of lesbian women remained stagnant and held on to many of the conventions mainstream film placed on them. While a couple of movies in the eighties tried to break some of these barriers, like 1982’s Personal Best and 1985’s Desert Hearts, true and resonating representations of lesbians were few and far between, as has been the case in much of cinema in general. In the nineties, representations of gay men continued to evolve; now that’s not to say that some of the same conventions of early queer cinema weren’t used, but one-note characters seemed to fade more into the background, especially with revolutionary filmmakers like Gregg Araki and Todd Haynes behind the camera, stories of gay men and issues of the queer community rose to new heights. Portrayal of lesbian women finally seemed to begin to evolve. A new problem however, rose. While positive portrayals of gay men finally seemed to reach the mainstream with films like In & Out, negative depictions of lesbian women seemed to plague Queer Cinema. Films like Basic Instinct, that were highly popular in mainstream society were extremely detrimental to both the small step forward in showing honest depictions of gay women and mainstream America’s overall view of lesbian. Other mainstream films like Fried Green Tomatoes, continued the idea of lesbianism being “swept under the rug”, or only implied or hinted lightly at. This is quite similar to how lesbianism was treated in The Children’s Hour. In the Lillian Helman’s original stageplay, though the word lesbian was never actually uttered, the idea of lesbianism and the relationship between the two protagonist, Martha and Karen, was much more explicitly stated. However, the screen version presents a much more watered down version of this relationship, one that is based in Martha’s psychosis more than anything else. In the book Fried Green Tomatoes, the relationship between Idgie and Ruth is explicitly stated to be a monogamous same-sex relationship. The movie however, omitted this and only gave ‘subtle’ hints towards the women’s feeling towards one another. This sends two messages to the American public- depictions of lesbian women are generally unimportant and for that matter lesbianism does not really exist- it’s all implied but not tangible.
So, how is this all really important to the discussion of how the messages of queer cinema change? It shows that while the portrayals of queer people have evolved, the are still stuck in the past in many ways. While visibility has greatly increased, the question of the value of the images being shown should and must be called into question. While some queer theorist would argue that any portrayal of gay men and lesbian women is essentially positive, no matter how stereotyped and contrived they may be, because it at least offers visibility, I feel that in the 21st-century, there needs to be a shift in focus from any image to the quality of image. I believe this is especially important in the depiction of lesbians in mainstream media. Though indie and arthouse films often offer a complex and relevant depiction of lesbian women, if you are looking for any recent one’s in mainstream culture, good luck! It’s almost as if they are non-existent. With the exception of 1995’s Bound, I’m unsure of whether or not there actually have ever been any mainstream cinema films were a positive portrayal of a lesbian or lesbian relationship is at the forefront of the film. A question in connection to this quandary has been raised in the last couple of years by lesbian queer theorist- “Where is our Brokeback Mountain?” Since reading Barrios’ book, this is a question that has stuck in my mind now more than ever. Lesbians finally seemed to receive their own Boys in the Band in the form of 1995’s Go Fish, nearly 25 years after Boys in the Band was released. Will it be another 23 years before lesbians receive their mainstream breakthrough film?
Dracula's Daughter
Blood for Dracula
Vampyros Lesbos
In the spirit of Halloween, I felt it pertinent to touch on one of the most negative images that the film industry has perpetuated since nearly the beginning of film- the lesbian vampire. Now while I pull from two different movies, the actual image itself is the same in all. The image is of the lesbian as a vicious predator. Now one of the earliest depictions of this portrayal is in Dracula’s Daughter. While she seems to be a woman of ambiguous sexual orientation, it is clear that her blood lust extends to both genders. Her preying upon women always seems more brutal than her attacks on men. The women are shown as defenseless, helpless beings, and the vampire as a relentless predator. The film clip above displays this about twenty-four seconds in. The film Vampyros Lesbos takes this idea to the next level. Made in 1971 in Germany, during the height of exploitation cinema, the film focuses on an ancient vampire who only stalks after the female blood, but is looking to make a life-long partner out of a beautiful, straight estate manager. She pursues the estate manager relentlessly, attacking her boyfriend, while still fulfilling her need for female blood. The climax of the film, of course, is the vampire being killed in a big bloody heap by the straight woman she was pursuing. Now I’m not saying the vampire should have lived because she was clearly evil, but the fact that most female villains are lesbians is truly disturbing to me. Furthermore, the idea of the lesbian vampire perpetuates a dangerous theory to a mainstream audience- all lesbians are essentially vicious, monstrous, blood-sucking women who are only interested in “turning” other women.
V for Vendetta
V for Vendetta, in my opinion, is hands down, one of the most beautiful, poignant, positive portrayals of a lesbian relationship ever produced. Not only does it act as the catalyst for a major change in the protagonist’s life, it also functions as a strong message about the injustices of government discrimination and the vast capacity of human love. The character of Valerie is introduced to the viewer through a letter, written on toilet paper, in a prison cell. The protagonist, Evey, reads of Valerie’s life, from her first girlfriend, to her parents disowning her for bringing home a girlfriend, to finding the love of her life. In a increasingly conservative society, Valerie’s life changes drastically when homosexuality becomes a crime. They take her partner as she is out buying groceries, and eventually take her several months later. They subject her to chemical testing, and she is forced to live out her last few days in the most disgusting of situations. In order to hold onto her humanity and sanity she begins to write the story of her life on a sheet of toilet paper. Valerie finds something more than tragedy in prison though. She discovers the power of integrity and how true freedom can transcend bars and chains. After reading Valerie’s letter, Evey is inspired to find her own freedom and integrity and fight for the integrity and freedom of those around her. This image is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it completely defies the conventions of a lesbian in a mainstream film; she is not killing or victimizing anyone, and is a moral character. The second is that while her sexuality is important to her story, the true value is in the message she delivers about the value of life, freedom, and integrity. The actual orientation of the character almost secondary.
No comments:
Post a Comment