1. Sexual orientation, like race before it (and to a certain extent still) serves as a way of turning someone into the “other” of socially ostracizing someone, of labeling, of discriminating, of finding a reason to see someone not for who he or she is, but for something fundamental about him or her. At the turn of the century homosexuality was often seen as immoral, illegal (in some cases) and obscene. Later it was seen as a sort of disease. Something psychological which affected the sufferer mentally and physical, and which physicians, psychiatrists and concerned family members tried to “cure”. Only recently has the majority of the population begun to view homosexuality as merely another personality trait, like race, gender, or physical appearance; not something someone can control, but something that just is.
Along with this change in the idea of what homosexuality is- a crime, a disease, a simple characteristic, the portrayal of homosexual characters in movies has changed. As Barios points out, “Seldom, until the 1940’s and beyond, were gay characters presented with overt malice” (9). But, after 1934, when the Legion of Decency created its “Production Code” things changed. After this overtly gay characters (and happy gay characters for that matter) were essentially weeded out. For a few decades the gay characters could only be spotted by the astute, tuned-in viewer. Or, at the very least, they could be overlooked by the oblivious and ignorant. From 1934 until the late 40’s/early 50’s, gay characters were spotted only by small cues, like a shift in music, like a certain sense of the aesthetic, or a way of dressing. And usually, they ended up being converted “by a woman’s touch” or never really displayed their sexual orientation in uncertain terms. Same sex couples never held hands or kissed, but only hinted at their sexual preferences. They were allowed to fondle phallic objects or dress in men’s clothing, or wear gardenia scented perfume or wear two-toned shoes, or sing and dance, or hint at their affections. But during this time period, sexually deviant behavior, along with violence, nudity, and other things deemed unworthy by the legion of decency was outlawed. Only in the 1960’s when the code in its entirety began falling apart did gay characters begin reappearing. In movies like Spartacus and Ben-Hur, which masqueraded as manly-men movies, some of the characters were actually attracted to members of the same sex or were bisexual. Even these characters hid behind a slight veil of innuendo and secret glances. In the following decades, homosexuality became more overt and
Even modern day gay characters tend to be relegated to “bit parts” or are the “token” gay character, or the very fact that they are gay takes over the whole plot
The reasons that the portrayal of homosexuality on screen has changed, and will continue to change is neither because
2)
In “How to Look at Television” Adorno claims that, “The repetitiveness, the selfsameness, and the ubiquity of modern mass culture tend to make for automatized reactions and to weaken forces of individual resistance” (216). This means that the viewer has no choice but to accept what is being spoonfed to him or her. If the viewer is given the hints that Algie the miner is gay, the flamboyant flapping shirt-cuffs, the make-up the voice, etc. Then the viewer can suspect that this character is gay. But, at the same time, when the movie ends and Algie has been turned into a manly man, and ends up marrying a nice girl, the individual again has no choice but to be convinced that he is not, after all gay, but just had some character flaws that he had to work through. This also brings up the idea that being gay would be considered a character flaw. Because Algie needs to be changed, his original characteristics can only be seen as “flawed”.
In his article, Adorno also deconstructs the idea of art for art’s sake, saying that no matter what, the art has some sort of commercial element or some sort of cultural identity it has to stick to.
So, Algie the Miner is not just a visual spectacle, or a self-contained story, but in reality is a social commentary. Anyone who identifies with Algie, as a homosexual, or someone with gender identity issues, has to feel slightly ostracized. The character in this movie is larger than life, and performs in such a stigmatized and unreal manner, that it is hard to take him seriously. Any one looking for a glimpse of themselves in Algie will only see an image of their reflection that it scorned, laughed at and belittled.
Adorno also discusses the stale nature of television and pop culture in general. He thinks viewers know what is going to happen because of the way popular media works, “Every spectator of a television mystery knows with absolute certainty how it is going to end” (216). So, if every viewer already knows that Algie is going to “straighten himself” out before the end of the film. If this is a given, then it means that society cannot accept a character like Algie, and that he must straighten out in order to function and survive.
In looking at the stereotypes that Algie and his fellow pansy characters fill, one could apply the following quote by Adorno, “The accents on inwardness, inner conflicts and psychological ambivalence have given way to complete externalization and consequently to an entirely unproblematic cliché-like characterization” (217). So, because of the way film and popular culture views the individual, stereotypes are not challenged, they are enforced.
Algie functions as a stand in for any gay male because of his overtly flamboyant nature and obvious OGT’s. This means he is easily identified and labeled. Yet even then he has to end up acting heterosexually by the end of the movie. So, he serves to point out to anyone who identifies with him, that acting homosexually is not acceptable and that this kind of behavior must be changed.
In The Reluctant Dragon Disney created a cute, cuddly feel good cartoon, but they also created a film about pacifism, a different sort of courage, friendship and the loneliness of homosexuality. The Dragon and Sr. Giles fit into the stereotypes created earlier in the century. The dragon is depicted as a swishy, “woo-ing”, bath taking, jam-sandwich making, anti-fighting, pansified mystical beast. While the movie sends a message to pre-war Americans that fighting is not the only answer, it also sends the message that homosexuality breads weakness and an easily swayed nature.
Both the dragon and Sir Giles recite poetry, both are not in prime physical shape- the dragon is overweight, the knight a skinny, stick of a person. Both of these characters are peaceful, jovial, and non-confrontational; all seemingly desirable characteristics. Yet somehow these desirable characteristics are not universal. As Adorno points out, “The curse of modern mass culture seems to be its adherence to the almost unchanged ideology of early middle class society, whereas the lives of its consumers are completely out of phase with this ideology” (219). So, while the message, or the part of it that preaches pacifism is one that most people agree with, the portrayal of the characters changes the focal point of this cartoon.
Also, the loneliness of the dragon seems to comment on his lifestyle choices. In the poem he recites for Sir Giles, supposedly about a pineapple upside down cake, he mentions how his “trouble’s never stop” and the whole tone is melancholy and despairing. (The Reluctant Dragon) The reason this “pineapple upside down cake” is lonely and miserable is because it is turned around, it is backwards; “Your top is on your bottom/Your bottom is on your top”. (The Reluctant Dragon). The dragon is backwards according to society, because he is homosexual (or at least characterized as such, even though he shows no actual affection towards another male). He is like the pineapple upside down cake, because he views things the wrong way around.
Like Algie, however, the dragon ends up being reformed. In this case he is just “turned” into a nice, polite dragon and doesn’t necessarily need to lose any of his rather flamboyant characteristics. However, it seems he cannot reveal himself for what he truly is. This reluctant dragon, like Algie, shows certain stereotypically homosexual tendencies even while he preaches a peaceful message and provides a political message. Yet, instead of these pacifist qualities being attached to something noble and respectable, they are attached to a weakness and a flaw.
In the last film I will be examining, Spartacus the “sexually deviant” character is the villain. Crassus is a bisexual, he pursues not only a slave girl but also a slave boy. The latter appears in the infamous “snails and oysters” scene. While the legion of decency and the censorship agencies managed to get certain violent and graphic scenes cut, the oysters and snails got to stay. Stanley Kubrik made certain sacrifices in order to keep his Crassus uncut and as controversial as possible. But, while this may seem a significant victory to a producer and an audience looking for any scrap of diversity in a film, Adorno points out that, “The outcome of conflicts is pre-established, and all conflicts are mere sham. Society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules” (220). So, even when a different perspective, or a character with an internal struggle is portrayed on screen, the audience knows what is going to happen. The bad guy must be defeated (according to the code no crime can go unpunished). The gay guy must straighten out, and the bisexual must see the error of his ways. So even those these problems are portrayed on screen, even though there is diversity, the diversity doesn’t mean anything. The audience already knows how things will end because of the rules of popular culture.
And, as Barios points out, “on the surface it (Spartacus) was even more conventional than Ben-Hur” and it was a “product of the industry’s most crass assembly line, Universal” (272). So, Spartacus was created within the same mold and with the same specs as any other movie of the time period. It didn’t really stretch and ideas of sexuality or masculinity, because it puts the bisexual character in a position that does not make him the hero or the powerful person. He is again, a stock character who doesn’t really create any emotional conflict or problem.
3)
The two different portrayals I found of gay people were a) a picture of Ellen Degeneres and her girlfriend, and a cartoon ridiculing Rosie O’Donnell.
In the former, both women look glamorous, happy, excited, and beautiful. This makes the viewer attracted to them and creates empathy or a sense of a common aesthetic. The viewer does not see this photograph and think of anything other than two beautiful women; there are no immediate signs pointing to the sexuality of the women, or anything condemning them for their lifestyle choices. They are not as sexualized as some other images of women are in modern times. They seem to represent the same ideals of beauty, energy, and intellect that most Americans ascribe to. This image would be seen as positive because of its aesthetic appeal, its lack of any conflict in direct subject matter and the way the picture is shot. WHile Ellen is wearing a suit, it has a feminine cut and the shirt she has on underneath the jacket is silver and not overtly masculine. The picture then, does not cater to any sever stereotypes or provide any criticsm.
The second image, that of Rosie O’Donnell, is negative based on the same criteria that make the first positive. She is shown as angry, overweight, and discontented. All of these characteristics make her what the Nazi’s would cal degenerative. Her portrayal (the cartoon is a caricature) is not entirely realistic, nor aesthetically pleasing. Her head is almost as large as the rest of her body, her legs are extremely out of proportion, the door frame which she walks through is cracking due to the strain of allowing her entrance. Her clothing is sloppy and boring. The caption for this cartoon reads,
While this cartoon does not actually capture the essence of Rosie O’Donnell, it is a portrayal of her, someone’s opinion of her. And, she is one of the better known “out” celebrities. So, even though this image might not comment directly on homosexuality, in a way it cannot be separated from that issue. Whenever a member of the viewing public sees Rosie, or Ellen, they almost always think about these women’s sexual orientation. Thus, this negative image, no matter whether or not it explicitly criticizes homosexuality, still sends a negative image. "Rosie O’Donnell will be the new poster child for the Vicious Bull-Dike Association in 2008.... If she doesn’t collapse in on her own gravity by then"
1 comment:
The images depicting positive and negative examples of homosexuality are interesting in the sense that they deal with contemporary and controversial pop culture icons. The first picture portrays two women looking “glamorous, happy, excited, and beautiful.” Certainly physical beauty, attractive physique, and shining features do help to create this positive aura between these two women, assumedly a couple. This is where some stereotypes are reinforced about how the ‘ideal’ couple should be. The ‘standard’ couple comprises a man and a women and this image does not escape that label. To those who know the picture is Ellen DeGeneres and her partner, we are clearly aware that this is a homosexual couple. We see Ellen dressed in a suit and tie [traditionally a man’s outfit] and her partner wearing an elegant white dress [traditionally a woman’s outfit representing her purity]. What bothers me about this is that this was not Hollywood or the Media reinforcing a stereotype rather it came from a gay couple. It may not seem like a big deal, but when in a lesbian couple a woman wears a suit and the other woman wears a dress, it is only highlighting the label of a ‘conventional’ couple espouses.
Post a Comment