Jessica D., Post 9

Jessica Duran

“Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?” -Ernest Gaines

Over a hundred years after those two men danced together in Thomas Edison's studio, movies still continue to be an integral part of our society and have the influential ability to touch our hearts, minds, and souls. Movies have the dual ability to both mimic and distort our world and people’s perception of it. They have played an active role in shaping and challenging our opinions and beliefs about life, love, sexual orientation, and gender identity. As people sit in darkened cinemas they are given the opportunity to “escape” from the drudgery of everyday life. Regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or social class; the movies provide an outlet for individuals to self-identify through. The movies allow people to live vicariously through the characters; they feel their joy, their pain, their sorrow. Everyone has their favorite movie, character(s), and movie lines that will forever continue to tug on their hearts. Movies have also greatly influenced straight audiences on how to treat and view homosexuals and gay audiences how to view themselves. Film has documented society’s changing attitudes towards homosexuality during the 21^st century (Barrios 9). At times films have portrayed homosexuals exactly as they were viewed and treated by society; at other times they have blatantly misrepresented and distorted this view (Barrios 12). Throughout the past century, cinematic portrayals of homosexuals have run the gamut from comic pansy to cold blooded villain to psycho maniac to everything in between. Even though these portrayals rarely ever shed a positive or realistic light on homosexuals; they still stand to be living testaments of acknowledgment that homosexuality has been a visible (always controversial) part of our society and culture since the dawn of the film industry (Barrios 365). Watching these films through 21^st century lenses allows us to reinvestigate and experience the cinematic portrayals of homosexuals and homosexuality on the silver screen from a new perspective.

The roaring 20s ushered in an era of raw decadence, “loose” morals, and high living that was also reflected in the films produced at this time. It was a time in people in which people reveled in the desires of the flesh. Films were oozing with racy sex, daring sexuality, graphic violence, and so much more. During this time, gay and lesbian characters, allusions, and situations, were more visible in American Cinema then they would be until the late 1980s (Barrios 10). The silent film era was saturated with arguably pseudo-queer flashes, from the comical drag performed multiple silent comics, to the infamous kiss between Richard Arlen and Buddy Rodgers in the film, Wings (1927). The “sissy” was one of the first homosexual stereotypes to appear and probably the most enduring; “he” has remained an easily identifiable, often constant presence from the silent era to today. There were always codes to highlight the presence of a gay or lesbian character. Words such as dearie, whoops!, lavender, fairy, Clarence, or pansy, were queerly teasing messages for the audience. To depict a gay man OGT’s (Overly GayTraits) such as: a flower in the lapel, a thin moustache, pursed lips, waving hanky, “lose” wrists, a high pitched voice, or overtly effeminate mannerisms did the trick. For lesbians, manly clothing, a cigar, or the sure fire monocle were utilized (Barrios 63). Though these characterizations of gays and lesbians often mocked or utilized them as a source of comedic relief; they would pale in comparison to the dangerously grotesque characterizations they would face in later years. These stereotypical roles and representations of gays and lesbians were fairly accurate to how they were viewed and treated in society (barrios 16).

Cecil B. DeMille’s salacious biblical epic, The Sign of the Cross, succeeded at being a formulaically scandalous movie that gave the public what it “wanted” and got away with much more than was normally permitted (Barrios 93). The highly controversial and “obscene” content of this film featured the overtly lavish bacchanalian excesses of Ancient Rome including: orgies, blood-soaked violence, nudity, skimpy costumes, and suggested lesbianism. This scandalous film featured an overtly gay Nero and a lesbian dance with “whore-of-Babylon hip swings” that Barrios calls "jaw dropping." (Barrios 88) It highlighted the decadence and immorality of Rome by contrasting it to the solemnly pure lifestyle of the Christians; the ultimate juxtaposition of vice and virtue. This erotic vehicle was saturated with homosexual innuendos, situations, and double entendres. From Claudette Coulbert’s titillating bath in asses’ milk to Charles Laughton’s slave-boy hook-ups to Joyzelle Joyner’s lascivious “lesbian dance”; it is quite evident that this film oozes with gay and lesbian references. This film’s utilization of overtly gay elements and themes would ultimately demonize homosexuality and cause it to be viewed as a direct threat to sexual “normalcy” and therefore added to the long list of “Hollywood evils being fed to innocent filmgoers” (Barrios 94). The cost of Demille pushing the envelope and creating this homoerotic film would go on to affect the entire movie industry and ultimately lead Martin Quigley, Joe Breen, and the “watchful eyes of the Hayes office” to enforce the “sanitization” of movies in 1934 (Barrios 83).

In 1934, all the unrestrained decadence and “degeneracy” of the movies came to a screeching halt when both the Legion of Decency and the newly enforced Motion Picture Production Code left their marks on the film industry and changed the face of movies. As the Jazz Age had faded away, the code now reigned over a film industry that was trying to alter itself to appeal to the public’s changing taste. Films needed to be sanitized to preserve public morality and uphold American “traditional” values. The code greatly aided in “ridding the public sphere” of “sex perversion” and preventing the public from being exposed to “degenerate” material. It would set puritanically strict standards that would prohibit couples from occupying the same bed, murder or rebelliousness to go unpunished, drug use, the depiction of women’s navels, and the open discussion or depiction of homosexuality (Barrios 128). Under the code, gay themes and messages had to be camouflaged; “The gay codes operated on screen in much the same fashion as a red necktie would function on a metropolitan street, conveying gayness to those in the know, often past the eyes of outsiders” (Barrios 61). Hollywood soon learned how to slyly write movies between the lines; leaving them open to interpretation by “intelligent” audiences who had learned how to watch between the lines (Barrios 58). Since “all in Hollywood seemed streamline-shiny, sterile, and censor-proof”, gays and lesbians would now have to look much harder to find some sort of identity in post-code movies (Barrios 142).

In Tea and Sympathy (1956), a diluted take on Robert Anderson’s Broadway play, Tom (John Kerr) plays an overly “sensitive” boarding school student who is relentlessly teased by both his class mates and macho father for being gay. Feeling sorry for Tom’s cruel treatment, the headmaster’s wife “offers” her own body to Tom; uttering the memorable line, “Years from now when you talk about this… and you will… be kind.” (Barrios 241) Naturally at the end of the film the headmaster’s wife writes a letter to Tom lamenting the “wrong we did” and how it ultimately ruined her husband’s life (Barrios 244). The subtext of this film blatantly condemns the vileness of adultery and clearly shows the audience the consequences individuals face when they indulge in the immoral desires of the flesh. On the same note, the film also shows the audience that homosexuals or “sensitive” individuals could be easily “rescued” and “cured” by the right woman (man).

During the 1950s, the "pathology" of homosexuality, parallelling the medical establishment's negative attitude toward it, erupted in American cinema in the late 1950s and beyond (Barrios 225). Movies during this time condemned immorality; homosexuality connoted evil and homosexuals were socially dangerous ( Barrios 248). Crazy psychotic queers were the driving force in films like The Strange One with Ben Gazzara playing a crypto-homosexual sadist at a military school or Compulsion with Bradford Dillman and Dean Stockwell playing the psychotic gay killers Artie and Judd. Homosexuals were portrayed as murderous, mentally depraved, and/or emotionally unstable individuals who posed a direct threat to society and therefore needed to be “cured’ or better yet tragically killed off (Barrios 248).

In The Children’s Hour (1961), Audrey Hepburn and Shirley McLaine portray two headmistresses at a private school in New Egland who are accused of having a lesbian relationship by Mary Tilford (one of their students), a spiteful little girl. Upon Karen’s (Hepburn) engagement to Dr. Joe Cardin, Martha (McLaine) passionately confesses her undying love for Karen. In the anguish saturated line, “I feel so damn sick and dirty I can’t stand it any more, Martha expresses the self-loathing and hatred that homosexuals were shown was the way they should feel (Barrios 308). Later in the film Martha eventually commits suicide by hanging herself in her room and her body is discovered by Karen. This film propagates the belief that homosexuality is immoral, depraved, dirty, and wrong. The subtext of this film speaks clearly to the audience blatantly stating that since homosexuality is evil and homosexuals are villains posing a direct threat to our “social order” and “traditional” values; therefore, homosexuals must die in order to restore order, purity, and normalcy to our society.

During the 1960s, the Production code had become a mere anachronism, many producers constantly pushed the limits and willingly risked not receiving the seal of approval (Barrios 294). As the time for the Stonewall riots drew near and the code continued to deteriorate, a change in the wind would finally cause it to crumble. Finally, in 1968, two Supreme Court cases “would change the way the country could police the sale and exhibition of adult material; one involved selling an adult magazine to a minor, the other the disputed ability of local censorship board to ban young people from a movie. The outcome effectively curbed censorship” (340). From then on films would now be rated on their final cuts and were freely allowed to depict previously taboo topics such as sex and violence. They also reveled in the freedom of being able to openly depict homosexuals and homosexuality. Unfortunately, most “gay films” from 1962 on did not target a large enough percentage of the population to rake in sizeable profit and thus the film industry wasted their opportunity to help the public accept homosexuality and sadly made gayness more “irrelevant and unappealing that ever” (Barrios 316). Gays and lesbians once again would have to “glean whatever good they could from the projected images, while attempting to avoid the negativity hurled at them” (Barrios 316). They would ultimately need to turn to television or independent/foreign films as sources if they wanted to see a positive or at least more “realistic” portrayal of homosexuals.

During the 1970s, American cinema would eventually “go back into the closet for several years” (362); homosexuality was something “shunted over onto the side or ridiculed or disapproved. The awareness and visibility homosexuals had gained since the Gay Liberation movement failed to be reflected onto the silver screen (Barrios 363). The road to depicting “real” portrayals of gays and lesbians in American cinema has been a slow evolution and is still a work in progress. The film industry still has a ways to go to finally grant homosexuals the “real” portrayals of gay and lesbians that they have so long yearned for; finally acknowledging them first and foremost as human beings and therefore realizing the truly amazing diversity and uniqueness of all humanity (Celluloid Closet).

This image is an ad for Dolce and Gabbana’s spring 2007 line. This gay “eye candy” ad depicts perfectly tanned and toned chiseled male bodies. These half-naked men have rippling six-packs, hairless physiques, and perfectly airbrushed features. These four male models are very much like the narcissistic, body obsessed overtly homosexual hunks depicted in the classic movie, Gentle Men Prefer Blondes (Barrios 234). This ad is blatantly super saturated with sexual undertones and utilizes sexually eye-catching homoerotic images that are geared towards gay men who are generally the male demographic that buys expensive designer label clothing. The homoerotic scene in this ad is utilized to capture this niche audience's attention and therefore entice them to buy Dolce and Gabana products. Though normally in our patriarchal society the female is the sexually objectified object of the male gaze; this ad features the male as the sexual object of desire of the gay gaze. Unfortunately, this ad actively propagates a one-dimensional, self-destructive stereotype of the gay man as being a vain, superficial, sex obsessed individual. The fact that this image is a culture industry product makes it all that more powerful in having the ability to the influence the public’s perception of homosexuals. The exploitation of sexualized images to market and sell products and services has become alarmingly commonplace in our society. By overtly and blatantly attaching hot bodies and sexy faces to products and services, advertisers and corporations equate their products with sex. Consumers are deceived to believe that if they buy—(insert any material object)—they will also get the hot woman/man that is associated with the product or service. The lesson that Cecile B. Demille learned early on in his filmmaking career is still applicable to our modern day society; “carefully packaged sex sells extremely well” (Barrios 23).

Though this ad features the very same depictions of perfectly toned and chiseled human bodies that the Nazis exalted and glorified; the Nazis did not view the human body as a sexual object, but as an immortal symbol of “Aryan beauty” (Mosse 28). They also labeled homosexuals as degenerates because they deviated from the sexual “norm” that was “enforced” by the Nazi party. Thus, Hitler deemed it necessary to “purify” his nation of these homosexual degenerates, who did not help to reproduce and perpetuate his master race, but instead corrupted public “morality” and marred Germany’s eternal beauty and respectability. Therefore, the Nazis would label this ad as degenerate because it promotes “immoral” behavior and “abnormal” sexuality and therefore would be seen as a direct threat to all German “respectability” (Mosse 25).

This ad only serves to perpetuate the stereotype of the modern gay male as being a sexually addicted individual who is hyper-obsessed with body image and physical perfection. As Adorno States, “The more stereotypes become reified and rigid in the present setup of cultural industry, the less people are likely to change their preconceived ideas with the progress of their experience.” (229). As long as the culture industry continues to produce images that perpetuate the stereotype of the modern gay male as being a sexually addicted individual who is hyper-obsessed with body image and physical perfection; society will continue to accept this stereotype as a realistic portrayal and fail to recognize the great diversity and uniqueness of homosexuals.

The image above is a Pro-gay marriage print ad by Kenneth Cole that appeared during the 2004 election year. During this time gay marriage and equality were both hot topics and many corporate advertisers including Kenneth Cole jumped on the debate. Since the early 90s, Kenneth Cole has made ads that are sensitive to gay issues and rights. This particular ad depicts two males with wedding bands tightly holding hands and features the caption, “52 percent of Americans think same-sex marriage doesn't deserve a good reception. Are you putting us on?” The double entendre in this ad makes it seem as though this image is solely a C.I. product that targets the gay community and entices them to buy Kenneth Cole products by tackling gay issues. This ad promotes Kenneth Cole products by having the two models sport chic black knits, rings, and a trendy watch all by the designer. However, it is unfair to view this ad solely as a formulaic C.I. product. This image is not an object solely created for profit, but is an image with the power to make people aware of gay issues and rights and ultimately bring about social change and justice in our society and alter the status quo of gay individuals (Adorno 220). It has the ability to promote the change of giving homosexuals the equal rights and humanized identity that they yearn for as was vocalized by many individuals in the book, Screened Out, and the film, The Celluloid Closet.

Sources:

http://www.matchflick.com/flickimages/3171.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/197426~The-Sign-of-the-Cross-Posters.jpg
http://www.queerty.com/queer/fashion/dolce-and-gabbana-do-it-again-20070309.php
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gay_mundo2/wilke/img_closet/700x502cole.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/53_1.jpeg/200px-53_1.jpeg