etibbetts post 9

erica tibbetts

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 Hollywood began portraying openy gay couples. 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). After this, the system for approving and rating movies changed, allowing for more violence, more nudity and more homosexuality. Barios points out that, “movies like Flesh and Trash, which viewed all sexuality with addled hipness… and there was also the start, with such foreign films as Therese and Isabelle, of the lesbianism-is-such-a-turn-on school of filmmaking that would soon enrapture leering hordes of heterosexual makes spectators” (341). Without the power to view scripts before they were turned into movies, and with a rising “out” homosexual population vying for on-screen portrayals, the Legion of Decency was hard pressed to keep gay characters off of the silver screen. However, “rampant homophobia seemed to be the price for increased visibility” (11). As the portrayal of gay characters increased, the portrayal became more negative, with these men and women being cast as the villains or ending up dead. Only with the likes of more modern movies like Philadelphia did the homosexual character get to be the “hero” (even if it meant having aids at the same time).

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 Hollywood has actively chosen to change nor because gay rights movements have gained power, but because these two elements have worked together. As the homosexual population grows in numbers, visibility, power and acceptance, Hollywood is pressured to cater to this population. As Hollywood caters to this population and provides a more benevolent mirror, the population gains validity and strength. So, it’s sort of a cyclical process that results in better PR for the homosexual community, better portrayal and a more “out” and accepted community.

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.

seriouslyomg.com/?p=4229

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,

"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"

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.

http://www.mattcondit.net/

Amanda D. Post # 9

1. While Barrios does not go into much depth about the historical forces that caused the changes in public portrayal of gay people, he does explain some of the social/cultural (through film) as well as political reasons for the alteration of the image of gays in society. Historically, the pressure of the Depression and the spike in nationwide morality following the liberal (for the time period) behavior of the 20s caused people to view homosexuality in society and the movies warily. Gays started to represent immorality more so than they did in the previous decade, and the humorous and eccentrically out-of-touch gay characters on film began to change along with the public attitude toward them in real life. Barrios then remarks on the general change in film and public attitude after World War II. The end of the war caused Hollywood and the people (the viewing audience) in turn, to see gays from either of two perspectives, “giddiness or gloom,” (predominantly gloom) as that is how they were being portrayed on film (Barrios 167). Gay men are seen as “mama’s boys,” spending too much time with their mothers and behaving in the ways that women should. This lack of paternal influence on film can be connected to the WWII era fear of sons adopting “pansy- like” behavior because of the lack of a father’s strong, masculine presence during the war. Thus films and society began to move away from the light and cheery gay image of the earlier decades (Barrios 171). By mid-century, the McCarthy era brought about both a fear of communism and a fear of gays, as homosexuality became associated with evil and disease. The homosexual community, though, only began to take seriously to activism later on in the century in an attempt to change their own situation and not leave it to politics or cultural changes. According to Barrios, it was not until the 1960s that “groups of gays and lesbians were preparing … to stand up for their identities” (Barrios 247). These movements tried to chip away at the general homophobia of the mainstream public, but were overall a “general failure” by the gay and lesbian community in “forming a cohesive political movement” (Barrios 315). Not until Stonewall in 1969 did a gay activist event cause any prompt for consideration at all, and even then it did not do much to propel the cause further (Barrios 347). For the majority of the century, most change in the attitude toward gays and lesbians came from political and cultural adjustments and not the energy of the homosexual community.

2. The film Rebecca, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, reflects and cultivates the public’s attitude toward and the image of gays in the 1940s. Adorno points out the set patterns and formulas that are present in all films and other culture industry products, and Rebecca is no different. Hitchcock directs the character of Mrs. Danvers, the late Rebecca’s personal attendant, with lesbian undertones. Her “passion” (Barrios 186) for Rebecca is seen in her dark, particular demeanor and behavior toward the personal articles that Rebecca leaves behind and when she speaks of her late mistress. Characteristic of the 40s formula for homosexuality, her “insidious” devotion to and obsession with Rebecca must not go “unpunished,” and so Mrs. Danvers burns to death in the Manderley fire (Barrios 186). This and similar films then create the public attitude toward homosexuality through the homogenization of culture and the mass audience mindset that results from it. Because of the current idea in the medical world that homosexuality is a disease, the decade’s precedent is set for the regard of gays in these noir films, which take this fodder from the real world and reprocess it so that all such films that follow take up the same formula and in turn feed the mass, public opinion of homosexuality.

The film Pillow Talk from the 1960s is quite a bit distanced from the image of the homosexual as portrayed in 40s film noir. Whereas the 40s gay character was dark and diseased and should thus be punished, the 60s character is a source of ridicule to make the straight audience feel better about itself, an “infantile charade” (Barrios 276). In the film, the heterosexual hero pretends to be a gay man, Rex Stetson, in order to get the leading woman into bed with him. The message sent to the audience, then, is that the gay man should be pitied and laughed at, hardly taken seriously. While this may be a better image than the diseased and darkly sinister, it still is not a positive depiction of homosexuality. The formula here would be that a heterosexual disguises himself as a homosexual in order to earn the sympathy of a leading lady, who then decides that it is her duty to “cure”(as opposed to punish) him and make sure, like in this film, that he is a “real man” (Barrios 277). Once again, the film products of the culture industry homogenize culture and affect the mindset of the mass viewing audience. The film relays a certain message to the people watching about homosexuality and then teaches them how to respond to and think about it. It sets the new public attitude toward homosexuality by presenting to the straight people (the effects are felt on gays, too) the way to regard it, and through the homogenization, very few think to respond otherwise.

The film Boys in the Band from 1970 reflects a changing perspective (once again) of homosexuality in film and, as a result, in society. The film looks into the lives of nine men and revolving around their meeting at a birthday party. Both the film and the play before it send an entirely different message than the preceding cinematic culture industry products, becoming the “defining” gay and lesbian film up until the time (Barrios 356). Unlike its predecessors, this film tries to take an accurate, authentic look at the life of gay men without any of the earlier stereotypical, formulaic portrayals. For the first time, homosexuality was not punished or depicted as wrong or evil or sinister or something to be laughed at and pitied. The characters all lived at the end and did not go through any “curing” or “punishment.” For society, especially gay audiences, the film served as a “beacon” that taught gays to “embrace” themselves and “move on” (Barrios 361). The lack of a set pattern for the gay character’s life remarked a change in some straight attitudes toward homosexuality and also the beginnings of the gay community’s real fight for their rights. It did not cater to the mass mindset or so much to the homogenization of culture, but it did serve as a landmark product of the culture industry’s making to lead the way into a new public attitude toward homosexuality.

3. This image is an alteration on a WWII poster that encouraged soldiers to stay clean during the war. It represents the Christian conservative viewpoint that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. The image itself appears to be more so a product of the culture industry than an example of art, especially since it tries, like the advertisements described by Adorno, to recruit viewers to adopt the mindset that is encouraged through the image (namely that homosexuality is wrong and blasphemous). Though it was not originally such, the altered text makes the men in the image appear gay and subliminally makes gays out to be dangerous and even evil. The text in the bubble warns straight people not to turn their backs on a homosexual, lest they recruit them into their lifestyle, and the expressions on their faces are slightly sinister, with strange smiles and eyes focused, unwavering and expectant, on the viewer. The image depicted here is similar in nature to the sinister and dark image of dangerous gays as explained by Barrios about gay characters in the film noir of the 1940s. Being a product of the culture industry (in effect, an advertisement against the acceptance of homosexuality), this image does not hold too much power because of the very target-audience specific wording and thus weakens the message for a large percentage of the public who may or may not come across the image.

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/p/3/3/GayShower-e.jpg

The painting Judas Kiss by Becki Jayne Harrelson is an art image that imparts the message that one should accept his or her God-given sexual orientation. This image uses the figure of Jesus, considered the holy and perfect image by a large percentage of society, to lend justification to the acknowledgement of and acceptance of homosexuality as natural and even good. The image urges the viewers to disregard the mainstream messages of other mass-circulated art and literature that says otherwise of homosexuality and instead to look at the issue in a new light. The depiction of these holy figures is meant to reassure the gay viewers that they are not degenerate or wrong for being homosexual and to state for the straight audience that homosexuality is a natural and God-given characteristic of a number of the population, not to be ashamed of, as some of the gay community testified to feeling in both the film The Celluloid Closet and the book Screened Out. Additionally, as “fine art” is given a position of more esteem than other art forms in society, this lends, whether logical or not, a bit more credibility to the painting than the culture industry-generated advertisements.

http://www.beckijayne.com/images/judas_260_r1_c1.jpg