Morgan, Post 9

Morgan Frost

1.)The ever-changing portrayal of gay people developed throughout history predominately due to forces of social and political nature. Though there are recorded instances of homosexuals themselves altering the public’s perceived image, the amount remains minor. As is the theme throughout movie history, the monumental “sense of identity that came with the rise of the Gay Liberation, (was) in no way reflected on screen” (Barrios 363). Instead we see a separate realm of homosexuals in their portrayal through the cinema. It is debatable whether the changes these portrayals took were a product of historical forces or rather events that coincided with historical events, but there is no doubt that the historical aspects had an influence on the changing views.

The first of these historical forces is the coming of Broadway and sound. Broadway helped “(institute) a tradition of gayness in musical film” (Barrios 41). The effeminacy of song and dance in the musical plays were adopted into the movies, and have a similar effect as the flamboyance of previous silent films in the portrayal of homosexuals as comical. Sound, however, offered a different influence. By adding an element to characterization, the vocal, the actor casted can offer a “more vivid (representation) than the simple mockery of silent films” (Barrios 42). Instead we have the development of a gay character, with specific traits such as a lisp; and the door is also opened for the vocalizations to be the vessel of communicated thoughts of gays.

Next is the coming of “The Code” in 1930. This is the Production Code of the MPDDA which advised the content of movies in adhering to moral standards as determined by its officials. This coincided with the Depression, and can be seen as an attempt to maintain structure and value in a time of its rapid decrease. “Homosexuality (in movies)—termed ‘sex perversion’ in the Production Code guidelines,” adapted by forming a “more expansive and varied” array of depictions to be viewed as the Code was installed (Barrios 52, 80). The purpose of the Code, however, was barely a ghost in its actual execution. Instead during the Depression, in order “to lure cash-poor spectators into movie houses, the movies became rawer and racier, sometimes more adult.” With this we can observe not a desperate obedience to the Code but a “nose-thumbing defiance of it” (Barrios 55). The 30s found the Code “having the exact opposite effect of its original intent…and alternative sexuality had become commonplace and accepted by audiences” (Barrios 122). It is important to note, though, the difference and the connection between “acceptance” and “acknowledgement” (Barrios 59). Yet movies continued to contain gays, thus acknowledging their presence in America, and the more this was seen on screen, the more it is believed to be accepted more readily.

With World War II came even more diverse changes. “The war gave (homosexuals) an opportunity to escape, to meet, to find themselves and be themselves” (Barrios 167). Recruiting companies even performed drag acts, sending the message that gays were allowed to “serve while being themselves.” With the war progressing, America entered an escapist mindset, yielding a “delirious and mostly gay-friendly” attitude (Barrios 175). This attitude was reflected in films of the time, with 40s films such as Star-Spangled Banner, and This is the Army. Homosexuality had become almost expected in the lives of servicemen and servicewomen. The time of escapism, though, opened another door to the negative side of gay portrayal in film. Film noir had begun to put homosexuals in a much darker light. They were no longer the non-threatening “pansies” of the past, but with more visibility onscreen came representations full of “corruption, weakness, and in some cases genuine evil.” Homosexuals were playing larger roles, but at a higher price, as the “true demonization of gays by film” had just begun (Barrios 212). With Hitchcock producing another version of Rope, real-life homosexual villainy was resurrected and put on screen in movies that reflected past cases such as Loeb and Leopold, the thrill-killing gay couple. Here the end of the forties marks a time when “gay ceases to be good” (Barrios 212).

In 1969 came a different breed of historical force—one with homosexuals behind it. The Stonewall riots in New York set the wheels in motion for a social revolution. Though progress was slow, homosexuals were finally altering their own image. “Groups started forming, discussions opened up, and existences were rethought” (Barrios 347). In a century where the driving forces behind changing views on homosexuals were typically social and political, the later years brought power to homosexuals in the portrayal of their own image.

2.) “How to Look at Television” offers Adorno’s insights on the messages delivered by the media. His work identifies the overt messages advocating the adherence to the status quo that characterizes successful media. According to Adorno, though, “the hidden message may be more important than the overt since this hidden message will escape the controls of consciousness, will not be ‘looked through’” (Adorno 221). This is to say that the overt message can be merely a vessel through which the work is distributed to the consuming public. The purpose of the underlying subtext, however, is to be absorbed; yet it still “aims at reinforcing conventionally rigid and ‘pseudorealistic’ attitudes similar to the accepted ideas of more rationalistically propagated by the surface message” (Adorno 222). Throughout history, these surface and hidden messages can be seen to provide audiences with certain views on gays in homosexually-oriented films.

In the 1912 film Algie, the Miner, the overt text shows viewers the passage to manhood that must be completed in order to earn a woman. The main character Algie, possessing suggestively effeminate characteristics, must achieve a level of masculinity before he is worthy to marry his girlfriend. Through his successful journey we see the change to another message—one holding much more weight than the simple audience-pleasing plot. The subtext presents the view that homosexuality or homosexually-inclined behavior can and should be “cured.” As recognized by Barrios, this becomes a common theme in films all the way to the present day. In this case Algie’s feminine nature is unacceptable if he is to follow a normal and what is deemed successful path. He must quit his flamboyant character in order to assume the masculinity of a true heterosexual man. It is like he is putting on a costume, and Algie’s transformation is meant to be believed by the audience, regardless of the absurdly unrealistic point of a homosexual man being “cured” of his gayness. Nonetheless, this film satisfies Adorno’s analyses on the media’s depiction and influence to maintain the accepted standards of society.

A later film depicts a similar surface message of naivety, but with a hidden message containing aspects of lesbianism and the way femininity was defined during the time. The naivety of Doris Day in the 1953 musical Calamity Jane is like that of the character Algie just discussed. Almost as a mirror of Algie’s effeminacy, Jane’s personality embodies the term “masculine”—from the physical traits of her clothes, gestures, manners, and slang, to the emotional and sexual curiosity she possesses towards actress Allyn McLerie. The overt message of Calamity Jane is one of amusement through the humorous comparisons illustrated between “butch” Jane and the fragile Katie. The musical seems to merely be poking fun at a naïve tomboy—quite successfully, too, since Jane is a buckskin-wearing, hunting country person while Kate is a dress-up, lipstick-wearing girl from the city. The surface message is not taken too seriously because Jane’s homosexual behavior is made light of as something that she learns to suppress in the end of the movie. While her homosexual nature is being made comedic, the message can be seen to take a deeper meaning in its hidden agenda. The insinuation that Jane’s “tom-boyness” is out of ignorance and something that one must be taught to be free of results in implications that fit into the same view on homosexuals present 40 years earlier in Algie, the Miner. The latent message still purports to “cure” the possibly homosexual girl of her queer ways by imposing the traditional status quo of femininity upon her ruggedness. This is exactly what Adorno addresses in “How to Look at Television” as he discusses the purpose of the message to direct the audience that “one has to adjust oneself at any price” to the standards accepted by society (Adorno 220).

The 1943 musical This is the Army was meant to boost public morale for America during World War II. It contained performances “done all in fun and all in drag” (Barrios 175). Where the obvious message is exhibited in order to show the excitement, cheerfulness, and carefree experiences that can be had in the army as a distraction to the depressing and morbid aspects, the message takes on a new form when viewed at through a homosexually-aware lens. The musical subconsciously—or consciously (depending on the audience member’s position as a consumer or an analyst of the film)—depicts the presence of homosexuality in the armed services. The social position on the issue is one of feigned ignorance—the notion that it is ok if kept behind closed doors. And so the army has become a safe haven for homosexuals to exist as long as the relationships are confined within the time they serve. The implications of this stance are that those in the armed forces transcend the requirements of the status quo. The status quo of the army becomes the detachment from the status quo back home. Homosexuality thus remains something that can be added or taken away from a person, much like the depictions of homosexual characters in the earlier Algie, the Miner and later Calamity Jane. Homosexuality is also portrayed as something that is still not acceptable if taken on as a true lifestyle, but only if it is something to resort to in desperate times like war.

The messages of a movie change when transitioning from the overt to the hidden as a result of their purposes to the audience. Where one may be simply to entertain, the other provides commentary and instruction from the social perspectives of the particular time.

3.)

Source

This image is meant to depict the physical and emotional connection between two homosexual men in a positive light. The placement of the hands suggests fondness of one another as the couple displays a loving relationship. Though being naked is the obvious indication that their embrace is sexual, the position of their bodies is not one of homosexual intercourse, and so we can see the men are embracing out of emotional motivation as well as sexual desire. In culmination, the aspects of this image send the message that homosexual relationships possess elements of connection beyond the person’s sexual preference, but deeper into the emotional realm.

Although this is an artistic and near-perfect representation of the male body, the blunt homosexual nature would deem it a degenerative piece of work by the Nazis. It can also be used as a “culture industry product.” The site mentioned uses it as visual decoration in its advertisement of the gay haven Costa del Sol. Thus it can still be viewed as a work of art, but it is employed here to appeal to the gay audience as a cultural product. In this way its message is also changed, not as one showing the deep connection between these two males, but as more of a surface message that means to appeal its audience into realizing their own sexual desire will be catered to in that location.

Source

This picture is a negative representation of the judgments made on people simply based on sexual orientation. The point is that people do not choose to be gay, and a baby already being gay illustrates this point. But the negativity comes from the way people view homosexuality. Many parents find it hard to accept their children as gay, often trying to “cure” them. This baby is thus less desirable simply because of its alleged sexual orientation. It is important to note, however, that the picture can be used in a positive manner as a “culture industry product” in order to raise awareness and combat homophobia. Used in this way, the negative image is used in way that exceeds the standards of visibility from the Celluloid Closet, making a point in support for homosexuals.

Theresa C, Post 9

Theresa Chu

1. Even today, many forces come into play in regards to the content contained in movies whether they are wars, social standards, or newly enacted and existing laws. Gay images and how they portray homosexuals have changed throughout film history because of many of these same forces. During the Depression in the 1930s, because people did not have enough money for food, let alone movies, directors would try and incorporate something so outrageous in their films that people would forgo food for entertainment; for example, in 1932, Cecil B. DeMille’s The Sign of the Cross premiered and became one of the most controversial films of the era due to a “lesbian dance” during an orgy. Despite the homoerotic nature of the film, swarms of people bought tickets to view it in almost rock-bottom stage of the Depression. According to Barrios, homosexual images would reach their apex at this time: “The year 1933 would be the peak of the movie’s version of the pansy craze: the gay and lesbian characters in 1933 films were made increasingly more conspicuous, more titillating, more forward” (96).
   While the Depression era saw an increase in gay and lesbian images onscreen, the onset of World War II saw openness in homosexuality diminish both in reality and on film (146). Although Barrios asserts that the time between 1935 and 1940 was “not the most active time for gays and lesbians on film,… in some ways they are the most evocative” (146). At this time, the Code set by the PCA was already established and running. Because of this, movie directors had to be “sneaky” in portraying homosexuality, also referred to as “sex perversion” (147). In the Bride of Frankenstein, for example, while the “Breen folk” were busy analyzing the excess amount of skin exposure and violence, James Whale inserted “subtle elements and allusions that would waft past” the PCA (150). This demonstrates how directors could bypass the Code and intentionally alter perceived images of homosexuals. Actors, such as Franklin Pangborn and Edward Everett Horton, also “knew exactly what they were doing” when it came to acting onscreen and representing homosexuals: “They were still adept at letting aspects of their identity show through in their work in an unmistakable yet safe way” (147).
2. Throughout various time periods, the messages portrayed in films in regards to homosexuality have changed dramatically. Adorno states in his article that “society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules” (220). It is apparent, then, that the way in which gay individuals were treated changed throughout history due to societal and historical forces, and this could be seen in films that were created during these various time periods.
   Towards the beginning of film history, actors in the silent films had to exaggerate all their movements, for there was no sound that could detail the scene. If a character was gay, his movements as well as his clothing would be obviously queer; for example, in Algie, the Miner, the way Algie dresses and interacts with other characters suggests that he has undeniable gay tendencies: “the dandified air, fluttering hands, pursed and apparently rouged lips, sly smile, and eyes that he bats while fondling the barrel of pistol” (Barrios, 17). After sound was introduced in film, a slew of movies containing homosexual characters premiered. Many of these movies contained lesbian characters (Repressed Mannish Spinster) that were “severely tailored” and “unawakened by the love of the right man” (Barrios, 33). Movie musicals were also a popular arena for showcasing gay characters; for example, in The Broadway Melody, Del Turpe, the queer costume designer, is shown having numerous spats with other characters mostly due to his personality stemming from his sexual orientation: “gush[ing],” “simper[ing],” and finally “giggl[ing]” (Barrios, 38). Throughout these films during the 1920s, although they were unusual, gay characters were still shown to be able to integrate into society and have a life: “Surely this did not imply widespread acceptance… but the generally positive nature of the characters needs to be emphasized, especially when compared with the horrors in store when gays became visible in cinemas once again three and more decades later” (Barrios, 43).
   Beginning from 1935 up to the 1960s, however, the open depiction of homosexuals had been “toned down” and became “far less acceptable” (Barrios, 147). The Production Code was already established at this time, and it banned homosexuality at the movies. Although directors found ways to get past the regulations, open gayness generally decreased both in film and in reality. It was during this time that gays were starting to be persecuted; moreover, evidence of this can be found in many films that debuted at this time. In Tea and Sympathy, Tom is wrongly accused of being a homosexual simply because he knows how to sew and clean his room. Due to this assumption, Tom is ridiculed and made an outcast. The reason why the views on homosexuality changed at this time may have been because of the onset of World War II. Many would argue that WWII actually encouraged the idea of homosexuality because the men were off together at war while the women remained at home; however, this does not prove to be the case, for homosexuals were indeed victims of hate crimes and discrimination.
   In the early 1960s, things began to shift. Barrios refers to Geoffrey Shurlock in saying that “the Code ban on homosexuality was even more outdated than the Code itself” and that the Code was “likely to change” (299). It was at this time that gayness became a bit more open in film; moreover, there was an amendment made to the Code in 1961 that would allow Lolita to be filmed and shown to the public: “In keeping with the culture, the mores and values of our time, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may now be treated with care, discretion and restraint” (Barrios, 303). Even though this amendment opened doors for other films during this decade, the homosexuality being shown in the films were usually detailed in a negative light: “…through fear and ignorance and a penny-mongering philosophy, the movie people made gayness to seem more irrelevant and unappealing than ever… For gay and lesbian spectators, going to the movies in 1962 and afterward would be like playing a game of dodgeball. They would strive to glean whatever good they could from the projected images, while attempting to avoid the negativity being hurled at them” (Barrios, 316).
   Despite this game of “dodgeball,” Barrios gives many historical events that allowed homosexuality to become more accepted including “a war, a civil rights movement,…new people less willing to hide or defer,… dealing with [homosexuality] as a condition instead of a disease,” and feminist movement (336). In 1968, film found “newfound freedom” (Barrios, 340) in its ability to portray homosexuality “openly.” Independent films, such as Flesh and Trash, made sex seem cool which downplayed the scandal of homosexuality. Gay images in film will continue to be controversial; however, we cannot escape the fact that homosexuality does exist and that it is playing a gradually growing role in society: “Despite the setbacks and the opaque corporate minds, gays and lesbians will continue to find their way into the movies, on and behind the screen. In the controversy over homosexuality, differences will matter less and less as more and more people see it in the movies and in their lives” (Barrios, 365).
3. In Notes on a Scandal, an older female fellow co-worker at a school develops what appears to be lesbian crush on a newly-hired, young art teacher. Because of her desires, she becomes obsessed with the young art teacher and begins to stalk her every move. The novel and film portrays lesbianism in a negative light, for it demonstrates how one can get so wrapped up in “wrong” yearnings that one would risk everything, including the livelihoods of others, to have something unattainable. The older teacher is described as a loner who lives with her only friend: her cat. In her past, she was also known to have been obsessed with another female co-worker only to feel “betrayed” when her co-worker revealed that she would be married soon. This film and novel can be seen as art, for it does not conform to old or recent popular story lines. Knowing this, Notes on a Scandal and the message it discloses is more shocking to spectators, for it is unexpected. In The Celluloid Closet, one interviewee says, “Visibility at any cost.” Homosexuals, in their thirst for representation, are happy with whatever screen time they get, for they are hardly spoken for in society.

http://thecia.com.au

On another note, this picture of Ellen Degeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi is an example of a positive image. Both women are successful in the entertainment industry, and their lives appear to be in order. They can be seen as culture industry products because, homosexuality aside, they conform to societal standards. Portia de Rossi portrays straight women in film, and Ellen Degeneres has her own talk show in which she addresses the same issues as talk shows of straight women, such as Tyra Banks. This context may affect their message in that it shows how homosexuals can be integrated and accepted into society as well as the fact that homosexuals are just like straight people with their emotions as well as their likes and dislikes.

http://www.celebrityweek.com

Kim post 9

Kim Hambright

1. In the beginning, there were homosexuals. They were depicted rarely in the media, if at all, and never in a positive light. Along with the invention of television, came the mass production of homosexual stereotypes. Often seen as mentally ill or confused, homosexuals were something to be “fixed” and were often depicted as such in films and television. In the eyes of the Motion Picture Production Code, and a large portion of society around the 1940’s, all gay men were sissies, and all lesbians were masculine cross-dressers. In the typical depiction, gay men were not intimidating because they were destined to die depressed and alone; but lesbians however, were malicious, attempting to “turn” straight women, and therefore had to be killed. Though some recognized the unfair stereotypes being placed upon members of the gay community, entertainment, such as movie production (which was considered an extension of the beliefs of society) would not change its portrayal of gays until the stereotypes about gays off-screen were demolished.

A major advance in the gay rights movement took place during and immediately following the Stonewall riots. As gay and lesbian oppression was broadcast on the news, on television sets and radios all over the nation, viewers and listeners could not help but take notice of the unfair discrimination. Once the issue had been brought into the backyards of everyday Americans, it was significantly harder for the general population to sit back and watch the oppression of gays unfold on the silver screen. The portrayals of gay and lesbian people that had previously been acceptable, not given much thought, was now in danger of violating human rights. For some, the inaccurate depictions were narrow-minded hate crimes, prohibiting the expression of gays and lesbians as individuals with varied personalities and identities. As the commotion about the Stonewall riots had died down, so did the activism fighting for the accurate portrayal of gays and lesbians. The movement was still in action, and continues to be, however, the issue had left the living rooms of thousands of Americans, and therefore, became less of a “big deal.” As time went on, homosexual characters began to develop into real people, albeit slowly. With the ability for variation, more movies depicting homosexual individuals began popping up, and in most cases, improvements to the traditional character stereotypes were being made. Today, the issue continues: homosexuals still do not have equal and completely unbiased depictions in all media; however, the changes made since the thirties is drastic to say the least.

“Despite the setbacks and the opaque corporate minds, gays and lesbians will continue to find their way into the movies, on and behind the screen.” (Barrios, 365)

2. As history has progressed, so has the depiction of gay and lesbian individuals. In movies and in television shows, gays were first depicted only with the use of stereotypical stock characters. In one corner were the prissy, flamboyantly gay men wearing effeminate clothing and walking with a sway, and in the other corner were the masculine-looking, frequently cross-dressing lesbians. In the movie Calamity Jane (released in 1953) Doris Day plays the main character Jane, whose boyish looks at the beginning of the movie thoroughly identify with the main representation of lesbians at the time. When first introduced, the character of Jane is dressed head to toe in masculine Western garb, making no attempt to hide her fascination with the femininity of Katie Brown’s character, Allyn McLerie. Throughout the play, Day can be found staring at Brown in longing, fixed on her delicate appearance. At one point in the movie Jane sings a song entitled “Secret Love.” The ambiguous lyrics of the song, though most likely used to reveal her attraction to her female companion, can be interpreted as her longing for her male counterpart Wild Bill Hickok. Following the societal explanation for homosexuality, Katie Brown’s character “fixes” the rugged masculinity of Jane by dressing her up in gowns and pulling up her hair. This scene is representative of the idea that homosexuality could be treated. The idea was that if someone came along and led a lesbian in the right direction, she could return to being heterosexual. In a contrived Hollywood ending, Jane marries Wild Bill Hickok; because of her transformation he has found her to be attractive, and her renovation has come full circle. Ironically, the homosexual significance of this movie is often disregarded. Search engines such as the Internet Movie Data Base pay little to no attention to the lesbian undertones, only stating enough on the topic to describe Doris Day’s character as “amusingly butch.” For one of the groundbreaking gay films of its time, it is hard to believe how some of the more obvious gay nuances go undetected, or purposely ignored. It seems that the “hidden message” Adorno was speaking of in the article How to Look at TV was never uncovered for this film.

A film released in 1970, Boys in the Band, managed to break the traditional stereotypes of flamboyantly homosexual men. In the movie, a group of gay men are attending a party when a single heterosexual man shows up unexpectedly. Each of the men at the party respond in different ways, attributed to their varying personalities and identities. After figuring out he has entered a homosexual gathering, the straight man attempts to leave, but is however, unable to do so. Something unknown to the narrow-minded audience, his possible bisexuality, is keeping him there. Though the film is an excellent example of the breach of traditional gay portrayals, the film lacks social interaction. Gay men are depicted interacting among themselves mostly, as well as in the presence of a single man of questionable sexuality; but overall, the film does not depict their place in society. The purpose of this film is not simply “art for art’s sake” as Adorno claims that many consumerist and commercial companies produce, but rather a film whose purpose is to counter-act the cultural oppression of homosexuals. The meaning is clear: homosexuals are people, anyone has the potential to be a homosexual, and realizing one’s homosexuality will not lead to their ultimate demise.

In a more recent film adapted from the music of Jonathon Larson, the portrayal of gays and lesbians is much more open. The film RENT (released in 2005) surrounds the lives of the lives of seven bohemian New Yorkers dealing with problems from drug addiction to AIDS. The open depiction of several lesbian and gay relationships leaves nothing to the imagination, especially when the transgendered character of Angel takes off her wig to reveal herself as a man. The main message of the movie however, is not homosexuality. Instead, the film focuses on the idea of love, with songs such like “Seasons of Love” and “Goodbye Love.” The bluntness with which the issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty and disease are handled completely defies the former stereotypes. Instead of being portrayed as evil, wicked, sick, or in need of an intervention, gay and bisexual people are portrayed as normal. Their relationships are depicted as loving and complicated, just as relationships are depicted between heterosexual people. In breaking the traditional stereotypes for homosexuals, RENT changes the meaning of lesbian and gay cinema, along with the meaning behind it. For this film in particular, the essential meaning of acceptance and love overshadows any negative homosexual stereotypes.

3. When dealing with the portrayal of homosexuals in the media and throughout culture, it is important to ask the question, “Is it worse to have negative portrayals of homosexuality in society, or is it worse to have none?” Keeping that question in mind, one is often exposed to images that project both positive and negative ideas of homosexuality. The two images below were taken from advertisements for the show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The title of the show alone is enough to point out both positive and negative portrayals of gay men, but the images are a more pressing matter. The first image represents the five stars of the show as stereotypical effeminate men, sissies if you will. Their typically masculine poses are offset by their “fashionable” clothing and their lighthearted expressions. In a way, they seem to be almost mocking the traditional view of masculinity. To a conservative viewer, this may be seen as a threat, intruding on and attempting to change the way men are depicted; the viewer may be uncomfortable with this notion, and blame their uneasiness on the gay community. In a similar manner, the first image likens all gay men to be the same, they are of one stereotypical group (the sissies), with no other options represented. One starts to ask if this closed-minded view and portrayal of homosexuality is better or worse than having no immediate portrayal of homosexuality. The second image, depicting the same five men portrays homosexuality in a much more positive way. Aside from the caption at the bottom and without prior knowledge, one may never have even guessed that the image was of five gay men. They are represented as individuals, with their own unique styles and personalities. The image makes it harder to classify the men into any stereotypical group, as they are not demonstrating any openly gay traits.

Both of the advertisements for the Bravo favorite, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, are examples of culture industry products. As advertisements, the images are not examples of high art, nor are they extremely influential in the changes made in society; instead, the images are representations of society at the time. The first image, photographed and published at an earlier date, references the heavily clichéd ideal of a gay man, an accepted part of social construction only several years ago. The latter picture differs in the way that it attempts to abolish the stock character of a gay male, attempting to recapture the individuals as opposed to just focusing on their sexual identities.

The next image is an advertisement for Sketchers shoes. In the image, Christina Aguilera is depicted twice: once as a scantily dressed nurse, and a second time as a wounded athlete. The athlete’s eyes are carefully drawn to the figure of the nurse, exemplifying the use of lesbianism is advertisement. Like any other media image depicting a woman with limited clothing, the Sketchers ad is degrading to women; however, it is also degrading to lesbians. The image attempts to use the sexuality of the two Christinas to attract potential customers, and by doing so, portrays lesbians as nothing but objects of lust. The advertisement is a negative portrayal of lesbianism not only because of its sole mechanism is its sexuality, but also because of its narrow classification of lesbians. The two female figures are what society would consider “lipstick lesbians,” or highly feminine lesbians, ignoring all other personality and appearance options that the gay population has every right to.

The last image is an advertisement for Tylenol PM. A rather radical advertising campaign, the image depicts two men in bed together, with the captions “His backache is keeping him up.” and “His boyfriend’s backache is keeping him up.” Depicting not only an openly gay couple, the advertisement also depicts an interracial relationship. The image can be seen as groundbreaking, not only because of its visual depiction of a gay couple, but also because of the text at the bottom reading “Stop. Think.” Though the words are placed in front of a box of Tylenol PM medication and are part of the product’s slogan, the words can also be seen to have a double meaning. One could interpret the phrase as a demand, ordering the viewer to stop for a moment, and take a look at their homophobic prejudices. The phrase could be a more subtle way to get the viewer thinking about the ways in which homosexuals have been oppressed, and consequently get the reader interested in activism.

While all of the images shown are more of culture industry products than they are art, one can see how the impact they make is similar. Their widespread infiltration into society allows them to reach massive amounts of people, not only expressing what they already feel, but showing them what to think about homosexuals, and how to deal with them. Similar to the prefabricated stock of homosexual characters depicted in The Celluloid Closet, the images of homosexual men and women in the media are often stereotypical and trite. While the overused cliché character types, such as the sissy, the crazed dyke, and the lipstick lesbian, may be hurtful to the advancement of homosexual acceptance and the eradication of homophobia, they are evolving. As seen in the difference in advertisements for Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America is slowly improving their depiction of homosexuals, and many would agree that negative or stagnant representation of gays and lesbians is better than none at all, so long as they are continuously improving.

Justin Wright Post 9

1. “The modern concept of homosexuality, essentially the way in which gay men and lesbians are comprehended, is generally felt to date to the mid-late nineteenth century. That makes homosexuality, as we more or less know it, approximately the same age as the movies.” (Barrios, p. 3) Up until the development of the motion picture, homosexuality was too taboo to ever be mentioned. Some nineteenth century novels such as The Picture of Dorian Gray contained homosexual overtones, but the vast majority of literature and art ignored this aspect of sexuality because of the prevailing attitude that it was a sinful choice.

With the development of silent film, emphasis was placed on visual cues due to lack of sound. Thus, more information had to be crammed into visual aspects and this led to the wide use of stereotypes. Homosexual characters were cast in the “pansy” stereotype – “the flower in the lapel, the little mustache, the waving handkerchief were all ways to code a gay man’s presence onscreen…For lesbians, a jacket and tie, slicked back hair, and an occasional cigar or monocle would do the trick.” (Barrios, p. 18)

These first portrayals of gay people were the first representations of them seen by most people. Homosexuality was rare during the beginning of the twentieth century, and something to be hidden. Anyone who encountered a homosexual would probably not know, because this fact had to be concealed. Thus, the pansy and the manly woman were the first images of gay people, and these stereotypes lasted for much of film’s history.

Once sound film was developed, the stereotypes largely stayed, but now homosexuality became a bit more realistic and prevalent in film. Gay bars were portrayed in the 1930’s, and new words such as “lavender” came to flag a gay character. The Hays Code was developed as an effort at getting the film industry to censor itself, but since any discrepancies had to be moderated by filmmakers themselves, Hays was completely powerless and ignored. Social forces in the movie industry continued to push the Hays Code to the limit, if not for any reason other than that being what other studios were doing.

Once the Breen Code was implemented, homosexuality went undercover. The Catholic Legion of Decency, and the Production Code Administration headed by Joseph Breen, united to essentially ban homosexuality from film, among a laundry list of other “sins.” The penalty for noncompliance was boycott, and the Legion of Decency had millions of members, which could seriously harm profits during the Great Depression. Film studios complied with this new censorship until it was relaxed in the 1960s.

Breen’s censors were strict, but missed quite a bit. “Pansy” became a banned word, but “flower” was not, and this substitution was made in some films. Scriptwriters found ways to be subtle and get films approved, even if it was with the “morally questionable” rating from Breen rather than “acceptable.” The censors did manage to hack more than a few scripts to pieces, sometimes leaving the resulting film hard to understand.

The 1940s brought film noir, and a darker tone. The darkness and urban environment contained plenty of places to conceal homosexual references. “Never, of course, were gays allowed to be heroes, although they were sometimes the villains of noir, or the victims…” (Barrios, p. 185)

Thus came the villianization of gay people in the late 1950s, with homosexuals always meeting an unsavory end. These endings were required, because no bad deeds could go unpunished by the film’s end, according to the Production Code.

By the 1960s everyone began to feel that the Code was obsolete, and the provision forbidding “sex perversion” was removed. Suddenly gay visibility began to increase, but the negativity associated with it remained.

Suddenly, things stopped changing. The negativity against gays and lesbians declined very slowly over the 1970s to the present, and except for an occasional film every few years, homosexuals were confined to minor roles. Since censorship was no longer an issue, the film industry moved on to other things, as homosexuality still remained an unpopular subject unlikely to generate large profits.

2. In the silent film era, homosexuals were often something to laugh at. In the film Algie, the Miner, the character Algie “is heterosexual only in that he has a girlfriend. Otherwise, he’s a card-carrying flamer.” (Barrios, p. 17) Since there was only the image of the film to characterize him, more gay mannerisms had to be put into his actions and dress. “The dandified air, fluttering hands, pursed and apparently rouged lips, sly smile, and eyes that he bats while fondling the barrel of a pistol” (Barrios, p. 17) are all the symptoms of a stereotype. Enter the pansy.

Adorno posits that the existence of stereotypes in culture industry film is used to save time and reuse characters. These stereotypes are good for “entirely unproblematic, cliché-like characterization,” (Adorno, 217) which helps the audience figure out what is going on sooner, and thus decrease the amount of thinking they need to do. The pansy becomes a popular but often overlooked stereotype that recurs throughout the next fifty years, and is always discriminated against or required to “prove his manhood.” If the pansy is a major character, he must convert to straightness by the end of the film or die, in order to follow this culture industry formula. One of Adorno’s observations was that “the outcome of conflicts is pre-established” (Adorno, 220) in culture industry products, and the fate of the pansy is a good example of this.

In the 1940s, homosexuality was undercover due to the strength of Breen’s Production Code. But, there were no derogatory references to it yet. In the film This is the Army, a group of soldiers dance in drag to a song called “Ladies of the Chorus.” According to Barrios, “there is some crucial gay history here: the reminisces, many years later, of some of the men who did routines like this one made it clear that USO touring companies featuring drag acts were safe havens for many gay draftees, allowing them to serve while being ‘themselves.’” (p. 175)

No value judgment was made by the film about being gay, but the production code had to obeyed. This was done by making the act look like it was done in good fun, and humorous in nature rather than the performers being “themselves.” While film producers tried to get homosexual references through in any way possible, the Breen code severely limited what they could get away with. Adorno makes mention of the Production Code’s effect on the production of films. “Those who produce the material follow, often grumblingly, innumerable requirements, rules of thumb, set patterns, and mechanisms of control which by necessity reduce to a minimum the range of any kind of self expression.” (226) These controls thus increased the commodification of culture by limiting the producers’ options.

The beginnings of modern popular culture are in the novels of the nineteenth century. About these, Adorno sees that “the stories teach their children that one has to be “realistic,” that one has to give up romantic ideas, that one has to adjust oneself at any price…” (220) These trends recurred in films that included homosexuality in the late fifties and early sixties, which were required to portray it as an evil act that never went unpunished.

In the film The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone, the character Contessa says: “Recently, I’ve heard her described as a chicken hawk… A chicken hawk is a bird of prey with a sharp beak, long claws, and a terrible appetite. (Cackles) She feeds exclusively on the flesh of tender young chickens. Oddly enough, the species is American!” (Barrios p. 295) The coded reference to lesbianism actually passed the Code censors, as they were beginning to become lax. But, the character Karen is chastised when described in this way as homosexuality was still reserved only for villains. The Code only allowed homosexual references when the gay people were punished by the end of the film. “Here, those who have developed the production code for the movies seem right: what matters in mass media is not what happens in real life, but rather the positive and negative ‘messages,’ prescriptions, and taboos that the spectator absorbs by means of identification with the material he is looking at.” (Adorno, 232) The Code had required that this become the new norm for homosexual portrayals in the 1960s, and this trend only slowly abated until the modern day.

3. This picture portrays gay men in a negative manner, declaring in the captions that being around them can make you “catch” homosexuality.

Focusing on formalistic aspects of the body, the three men are young, strong, and secure with themselves enough to shower publicly. The lighting emphasizes their muscles, and their expressions are happy. These aspects are the opposite of the Nazi concept of degeneracy, as they focus on the physical perfection of the male body. However, this concept of flaunted physicality carries homoerotic overtones in American culture. The film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, included in the documentary Celluloid Closet, contained a scene of scantily clothed men in a gym working out, totally ignoring an attractive actress. The scene was dependent on the emphasis of revealed physical form to convey homosexual overtones. This image above uses the same associations. According to Adorno, stereotypes are used to make easy characterizations. Here, a negative stereotype is evoked by the word “sodomites,” is used to make gay men look like sinful hedonists who have chosen an unnatural lifestyle.

This picture of a gay couple shows the two men in a relationship. Both of them appear happy to be together, and there are no derogatory insinuations.

The body is not present in this image. Only the faces of the men are visible, and the man on the right’s face is somewhat obscured by the camera angle. The upper portions of the body are concealed by clothes. There is an emphasis on desexualizing the body here, in order to emphasize the relationship between the men rather than sexual aspects that might be less palatable. Thus, the image does not glorify the body in Nazi style. Yet, it also does not portray it in a manner different from reality, so this image is not of degenerate style either. Openness towards homosexuality has increased in recent years, and a few vanguard films have portrayed it on the same level as heterosexual relationships, such as the film Making Love mentioned in Celluloid Closet. This image does the same, showing homosexuality as something natural to some individuals and still a form of love. This image is also contrary to popular stereotypes of gay men, showing them as no different in appearance than heterosexuals. No lavender or other symbols are used. Therefore, this image is not a typical popular culture product, because it does not hinge on stereotypes and formulas as Adorno says these products must, and favorable images of homosexually without stereotypes are still somewhat uncommon.

Sources:

Richard Barrios, “Screened Out.”

Theodor Adorno, “How to Look at Television.”

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

http://www.beyondchurchstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/gay%20boys.jpg

Ruth D. Post 9

Ruth E. Day

1.

According to Barrios, the change in the views and portrayals of gays in film came very little from the efforts of the gay community and mainly from social and political forces. At the beginning of the age of cinema, homosexual portrayals were actually very common. However, such portrayals were usually meant as comedy. Gay men, or “pansies” and “faeries” as they were called at that time, were objects of ridicule for a straight audience. Actual gay couples were rarely portrayed. Instead, men with feminine characteristics were shown as cross-dressing or in traditionally female roles such as fashion designers. Many times, these characters would be dominated by women further calling attention to their lack of masculinity. This is what the straight audience wanted to see, not necessarily how the gay community wanted to be portrayed. Even though many of the directors and actors were homosexual, the films had to play to the interests of the majority of audiences which were straight. For this reason, effeminate men on the screen were meant to be laughed at and this became the image of the homosexual male. This image was portrayed quite often during the early years of film. As Barrios states, “It was, and has remained, the most wide-open cinematic era since the birth of feature films,” (Barrios, 50).

A little less common but still present during the era of silent films and talkies was the portrayal of lesbians in film. Films like My Lady of Whims and The Silver Cup both portray women who where clothing traditionally seen as masculine. They also stand with a rather man-like posture and generally have a hatred or general dislike of men. In My Lady of Whims one woman looks on jealously as her roommate flirts with a man. Both the portrayal of gay men and lesbians on film were generally harmless and comedic at this time. It was also rather widespread and obvious. This did not mean that homosexuals were widely accepted but they weren’t looked at as inherently evil either. “Surely this did not imply widespread acceptance… but the generally positive nature of the characters needs to be emphasized, especially when compared with the horrors in store for them when gays became visible in cinemas once again three and more decades later,” (Barrios, 43). What Barrios is alluding is the portrayal of gays during the era of the production codes and the films that would come after the codes were loosened and eventually replaced with the MPAA rating system.

These changes obviously did not result from the efforts of the homosexuals themselves. A code was in place during the first half of the 1930s but it was usually ignored because it was relatively unenforceable. Movies such as The Sign of the Cross, which contained partial nudity and graphic violence and even a lesbian dance, were made in abject defiance to this coed. This defiance led to an outrage among officials of the Catholic Church and other groups. According to them, “Hollywood was the corruptor of the young, the evil empire, the ultimate source of all the nation’s ills,” (Barrios, 130). These outcries eventually led to the 1934 code. The code outlawed a great number of objectionable material being portrayed in film including homosexuality, which was deemed “sex perversion”. In post-code cinema, “Value would always find some compensation, sanctity could not be attacked, and any type of wrong was duly and visibly punished,” (Barrios, 138). Also, homosexuals could no longer be openly portrayed in film at all. Attempting to do so would prevent the film from getting a code seal and from being shown in the picture houses. This does not mean that homosexual characters were absent from film, the just weren’t as obvious as they had been before. Only those who were “in the know” could pick up on such homosexual characters. “Such, for some years, would be the fate of gays on film – present yet weirdly invisible, just as in life, and incapable of carnal feelings or, sometimes, simple human contact,” (Barrios, 144). Also, according to The Celluloid Closet, such characters hardly ever made it through the last reel without suffering some gruesome death. Homosexual characters were usually evil villains. Lesbians were often portrayed as Satanists, like in The Seventh Victim, while gay men were depicted as unrepentant murderers, such as in Rope. Obviously, these changes in gay portrayal did not come about as the result of the efforts of the homosexual community. They were the product of social and political pressures by the Catholic Church and other groups.

During the early 1960s, changes were made to the production code that allowed homosexuals to again be portrayed openly in film. “Beginning in 1960 and culminating more than a year later, a series of events, mainly nonrelated, led to changes in the Production Code that would officially allow the movies to look at homosexuality,” (Barrios, 294). These events were not driven by the homosexual community but more by a growing prevalence of homosexuality society. It was a fact of life so, naturally, producers wanted to portray it on film. “Dated October 3, 1961, the amendment was both specific and vague: ‘In keeping with the culture, the mores and values of our time, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may now be treated with care, discretion and restraint,’” (Barrios 303). However, this amendment did not lead to different depiction of homosexuals on film but rather a more obvious one. As previously quoted, now that gay characters were again openly portrayed on film, there were man horrors in store for them. Homosexuality was still seen as something evil, such as in Walk on the Wild Side and Sodom and Gomorrah, or something to be pitied, like Martha in The Children’s Hour. The message of these openly gay films was clear: if you were gay or lesbian, you could never be happy. Portrayals of homosexuals in films carried the same message even at the end of the 1960s when the code was completely replaced with the MPAA rating system. Pretty much anything was now game. Same sex couples could be portrayed as expressing their love but they still could never be happy. As Michael from The Boys in the Band states, “You show me a happy homosexual and I’ll show you a gay corpse,” (Barrios, 358). It can go without saying that this type of portrayal did not come about through the efforts of homosexuals. They have always been portrayed as evil, pitiful, or objects of ridicule. The extent to which homosexuals are portrayed may have been heightened by the actual homosexual community but the way they are portrayed has always been controlled by the morals of the time.

2.

Homosexuals have always been portrayed as members of the current homosexual stereotype. They went from being people with obvious traits belonging to the opposite sex to blood-thirsty murderers to inherently unhappy individuals. The earliest of these stereotypes can be seen in the first movie musical every made. It is called The Broadway Melody. Much of this film takes place behind the scenes of a Broadway theatre. One of the characters is a male costume designer who worries about the actresses’ treatment of his hats. He is told off and obviously dominated by the Wardrobe Woman who easily dominates him. This scene portrays both a man with feminine characteristics and a woman with masculine characteristics. The man has a simpering voice, is of a small build, and wears light colors. The woman has a very forceful voice, is very tall and domineering, and wears dark colors. The portrayal is a prime example of the stereotypes of the time. Gay men were “like women” and lesbians were “like men. This is not necessarily the case in real life but this is how homosexuality was depicted in film. “What matters in mass media is not what happens in real life, but rather the positive and negative ‘messages,’ prescriptions, and taboos that the spectator absorbs by means of identification with the material his is looking at,” (Adorno, 232). The message that The Broadway Melody relays is that gay men act like women and gay women act like men. The fact that this wasn’t the case in real life doesn’t matter. It became the way real life was through these portrayals because the homosexual public would start to act as they were expected to. Also, the heterosexual public would begin to see any effeminate man or any masculine woman as homosexual.

During the era of the Production Code came a new homosexual stereotype. Before this era, homosexuality was considered immoral but now gay people were starting to be depicted as inherently evil. One example is Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope. Rope is about two men who killed another just for the experience of taking another’s life. The fact that these two killers are a homosexual couple could not be openly stated at this time but there are some clues within the film that point to this fact if one is paying attention and knows what to look for. Such a thing was easier to find in this film especially since it was widely suspected that it was based on Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold case of 1948. Loeb and Leopold were a known gay could who killed a man just for the thrill. The connection was obvious. The only difference in this true story and the story within Rope was the name of the characters. In the film, they were called Brandon and Phillip. These murderous homosexuals furthered the stereotype of the time and that all homosexuals were inherently evil. “This not only distracts from any real social issues but also enforces the psychologically extremely dangerous division of the world into black (the outgroup) and white (we, the ingroup),” (Adorno 231). Films like Rope divided the world into good and evil. Homosexuals were placed without a doubt into the latter. The message is clear: if you are gay, you must also be evil. There are no exceptions.

At stereotype that arose after the Production Codes became less strict during the 1960s was that gays and lesbians could never be happy. A film that furthers this stereotype from this era is called The Children’s Hour. Martha, the lesbian character, is in love with her straight work partner, Karen, who is engaged. The two of them own and run a school and have been best friends since college. One of their students starts a rumor about the two of them. The rumor is never stated allowed but it is obvious that she is leading others to believe that Karen and Martha are involved in a lesbian relationship. This rumor eventually leads to the closing of the school. Martha blames herself and at the end of the film commits suicide. Again, the message is clear: if you are homosexual you can never be happy. You will suffer forever from unrequited love, self-disgust, and social alienation. You might as well end it now. Such stereotypes are dangerous and untrue but that does not matter because the media makes it true.

3.

Many of the stereotypes discussed in part 2 are still prevalent in today’s media. One such example is the portrayal of lesbians in the film Monster. This film is based on the true story of Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute who becomes a serial killer. She is also a lesbian. During the time that she has a lesbian relationship with a woman named Selby, she starts murdering her patrons so that she can get money without using sex. This film furthers the stereotype that homosexuals, specifically lesbians, are inherently evil. She is depicted as masculine and obviously unhappy as well. The fact that this is all based on a true story makes the negative message all the more piercing and believable. It could lead other lesbians to fear for their own morality and happiness.

A more positive depiction of homosexuality in contemporary media is found in the character of Kevin Walker in the ABC drama Brothers and Sisters. Kevin is a cut-throat lawyer who also happens to be gay. He is very successful in his career which is a masculine trait. He doesn’t have the stereotypical gay simper and he isn’t obsessed with clothes are interior design. He is a normal, everyday person. He is happy and gets along well with his mother and brothers and sisters. No one shuns him and he becomes involved in numerous beneficial relationships (one at a time of course). It may even be possible to say that he is one of the happiest characters on the show since he his surrounded by his siblings who are going through failing marriages, just getting back from Iraq with very serious injuries, and dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. The message of Kevin’s role in the show is that homosexuals are normal people too. They can be happy, successful, and good people without pretending to be something they’re not.

http://tv.yahoo.com/matthew-rhys/contributor/48319/photos/1;_ylt=AqbUoXLRqWYpnkD5UNAOW3xSWYV4
http://tv.yahoo.com/matthew-rhys/contributor/48319/photos/1;_ylt=AqbUoXLRqWYpnkD5UNAOW3xSWYV4

Ally, Post 9

Ally Best
Post 9

It would be impossible to draw a line separating film’s influence on society and society’s influence on film. As Barrios stated early in his novel, “The movies are us; we are the movies” (Screened Out, 2). The two forces overlap in a complicated web that cannot be untangled. As time goes by, each party (the film industry and the audience) makes its mark on the world. Films portray life as it is, yet they oftentimes have the power to influence people and/or change the way they see the world. So, when looking at filmmaking and the advances of gay and lesbian people, we must consider two factors: how the movies influenced perspectives and how perspectives influenced movies. Over the course of history, many gay people in Hollywood itself have had the ability to affect what goes into films. Gay directors could choose to put a gay character in a film, even if just as a “cameo” appearance. Over time, the appearance of gay characters in film became less shocking and, as a result, the appearance of gay people in real life became more ordinary. As Steiner discussed the view that increased exposure to sexualized images may make people grow more accustomed to sexualized subject matter, increased exposure to gay people in films has helped people view gay and lesbian relationships as a way of life, rather than an oddity. Barrios was sure to mention how closely linked film and homosexuality have been over the years. In fact, our modern view of homosexuality began around the same time that the movie industry took off. With each advance the industry made, so did the gay community. With the addition of sound to films, the gay character (or perhaps more accurately “the gay lisp”) became commonplace in films. As the popularity of this form of entertainment grew and spread to include more viewers, so did the influence of the gay themes. Had this influence been allowed to spread at this rate, perhaps society today would be more accepting of homosexual relationships. However, as it turned out, gay portrayals in movies encountered several major obstacles in the 30’s: the Legion of Decency and Motion Picture Production Code. At first, these restrictions seemed impotent. In fact, their effect seemed to be the polar opposite of their aim. During the first few years of the decade, an attitude of defiance of the restrictions prompted the creation of raunchier, more adventurous, and possibly even more realistic films. However, this freedom was short-lived. By 1934, stricter enforcement of the existing regulations caused gay themes to all but disappear from films. An addition to the 1934 code mandated that, “SEX PERVERSION or any inference to it is forbidden” (Screened Out, 128). With this simple statement, homosexuals everywhere plunged into hiding. As homosexuality disappeared from the big screen, it also seemed to disappear from society. Despite this extreme censorship, gay actors still managed to integrate almost “hidden” messages into films. Through their work, they managed to keep hints of homosexuality alive in even the most hostile climates. War has also been a leading influence in the advances of gay and lesbian cinema. According to Barrios, it provided such individuals with a heightened sense of freedom and individuality. With the majority of the country busy dealing with the war, few people had the time or energy to uphold the censorship previously placed on films. This independence allowed gay individuals to become who they wanted and the cinema modeled this change. The 60’s also had a very “free” atmosphere, which encouraged many producers to defy the Production Code. By 1962, the old version of the code had disintegrated and even more freedom was given to film content. Finally, with the addition of the formal rating system, the transformation appeared to be, at long last, complete.

In his article “How to Look at TV,” Adorno discusses how there are many different levels at which one views a film. At one point he even goes as far as claiming that the more “hidden” levels have more effect on the spectator than the obvious ones. These subtle hints and messages have the ability to sink into the viewer’s subconscious and, therefore, remain uninfluenced by most rational thought. At many points throughout history, the only portrayals of homosexual themes in films were in the form of these hidden messages. Therefore, while gays and lesbians may not have been allowed to present very obvious representations of themselves, their subtle, subliminal hints may in fact have played a very crucial role in shaping attitudes towards homosexual relationships at various stages throughout history. One of the earliest examples of gay characters in film was in the movie Algie, the Miner. Algie was a stereotypical gay character. He had very feminine traits and mannerisms and, in fact, the plot of the movie involved him setting out on a quest to prove his manhood. Yet, he was a part of a comedy so his sexual orientation was turned into more of a joke than an actual depiction of life. The purpose of the movie was to raise a few laughs from the viewer and, while it may have accomplished this goal, it also instilled in viewers the idea that gayness was something to mock rather than accept. By the 1940’s, however, gay themes had acquired a more sinister connotation. In Rope, two gay lovers plan and execute a cold-blooded murder. The movie was based off of an actual murder case that had occurred 20 years earlier. While Hitchcock may have been interested primarily in the technical aspects of the film, the result prompted a somewhat evil view of homosexuals. The portrayal of the dominant character lacked basic human sympathies and compassions. His heartless killing for personal gain with complete lack of remorse makes him appear to be more of a monster than a human being. Therefore, the message being sent in this film is that gay people are evil. Even if the viewer does not knowingly acknowledge this message, it is engrained into his or her brain. While watching the movie, viewers equate this cruel, heartless, and twisted personality that they don’t understand to the other aspect of the character that they don’t understand: his homosexuality. Because viewers may not be well acquainted with either trait, they erroneously link the two and make the false assumption that gay people are twisted or cruel. Suddenly, Last Summer also attempts to create a connection between “evil” and “homosexuality,” but, in fact, goes one step farther by rolling cannibalism, blasphemy, and incest into a movie featuring gay characters. Created in the late 50’s, the film seemed to imply to some naïve viewers that cannibalism was some sort of moral and/or mental corruption and that it was associated with the other “corruption” of homosexuality. Finally, as the 60’s drew to an end, Hollywood at last produced a film that would change the portrayal of homosexuals in a more positive, or at least more realistic, way. The Boys in the Band was originally a play, but after its huge popularity in the theatre, director William Friedkin adapted it for the big screen (Screened Out, 357). The film was a major breakthrough for homosexuals everywhere because, at long last, it seemed to provide an accurate depiction of gay people. They were not shown as sissies, nor were they shown as monsters. Instead, they were finally shown as what they truly were: human beings. The gay characters in The Boys in the Band were not perfect, yet they were not evil either.They had flaws like everyone else, yet their lives were not stories of complete isolation or victimization. The subtext of this film seemed to tell the viewer, “Homosexuals are normal people, just like you.” By seeing homosexuals behave as “normal” people as opposed to demons, victims, or sissies, viewers were able to relate to them and, ultimately, begin to accept them.

Gay characters today are portrayed in many different ways. For example, in the movie Mean Girls, one of the characters (Damien) is depicted as a very feminine gay character. In the past, sissies were often included in films “to make men feel more masculine and women feel more feminine” (Celluloid Closet). Because they were somewhat of a “mix” between the two genders, they never seemed to really succeed in either one. Damien in Mean Girls appears to be an overly-feminized version of a sissy. In fact, at one point in the film he seems to be “teaching” Lindsay Lohan how to be a girl. While he is certainly not a violent or cruel character as in some film depictions of homosexuals, he is also not what I, or Barrios for that matter, would consider a “positive” por

trayal of a homosexual. His role in the movie is to make people laugh, which he does with great success. However, as a character, he lacks depth and dimension. His “gay tendencies” are over-exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness and he is clearly not intended to be taken overly seriously. This representation is negative because it does not allow the audience to see him as an individual; they simply regard him as a sissy and fail to notice who he is as a person. Because hi purpose was solely for entertainment and comical reasons, his role in this film, as well as the film in general, would be considered culture industry products. The creators of the film took a stock character that they knew would produce laughs (very feminine gay guy) and inserted him into the movie following a formula already set out for them. Will and Grace, on the other hand, is what I would a

rgue to be a much more positive portrayal of homosexuality. The primary purpose of the show is still to produce laughter, so it would still be considered a culture industry product. However, it functions as less of one than films such as Mean Girls. The creator took considerably more risks when creating Will and Grace because the entire show was focused on a theme that many viewers might not have enjoyed watching. While Will and Grace does have the stereotypical sissy (Jack) thrown in for laughs, it also has Will, a much more complex character. Yes, he is gay; he has boyfriends. Yet, he also has close straight friends (Grace), an apartment, a job, and a life. There is more to him than simply being gay, and his homosexuality is not excessively dramatized to the point where he only wears bright pink or speaks with a lisp .Thinking back to the readings about degenerate art, Will’s appearance would probably have met the expectations of what a man “should” look like. He was neat and well-kept, yet did not generally display any overtly “gay ten

dencies.” Audiences were quick to fall in love with his good personality and, as a result, he helped remind them that gay people are, after all, just people.

Rob H, Post 9

Rob Hoffman

Section I

The idea of a homosexual individual is actually still a fairly recent innovation in the Western world. This probably sounds peculiar; what about the Greeks and the pederasty? What about the Romans? What about those Renaissance artists and their “apprentices?” What about the licentious European upper class of the 17^th and 18^th century? Certainly there seem to be enough examples throughout history to demonstrate that sexual exchanges between members of the same sex have been occurring as far back as our history goes.

No argument there. The point, though, is that the label of “homosexual” or “gay” or “lesbian” or any other (usually offensive) term is actually a kind of social construction. Throughout most of recorded human history, engaging in homosexual activities was fairly normal and did not confer any particular label or designation onto an individual. It was only after homosexuality and sex acts between individuals of the same sex began to be viewed in a strict sense as a sin that labels started appearing. Once it was a sin it became something dirty and profane. This would have been bad enough, but during the 19^th century burgeoning medical science began promoting the idea of homosexuality as a kind of disease. As psychology became increasingly significant in the 20^th century, homosexuality was included in the language of pathology; instead of referring to undesirable traits in the language of morality, people began viewing them as disorders to be treated.

This more of less gets us to where we were when the Codes were enacted: gays are viewed as willful degenerates who can be cured of their ailment. The element of disgust and danger is absent from the early depictions of gays; they are poked fun at, but they are not sickening to the heterosexual viewer. Perhaps the two are related, and the reason that the gays depicted in early, silent films were not disturbing to heterosexual viewers of the time was precisely because they were not meant to be taken seriously. Either way, this slowly changed and the image of gays and lesbians hit a kind of rock bottom.

How did the depiction of homosexual individuals become more positive after such a low level? What forces were behind the change? While the homosexual community itself would have had the greatest interest in bringing about a more positive image, it is unlikely that most of the change was due directly to the actions of individual gays and lesbians. They simply did not have the ability to be open and vocal; if they were open, the only safe place was under the radar. They could easily be arrested for their behavior, and even if they weren’t the still were forced to deal with overwhelming negative social pressures.

Where did the change come from, then? Interestingly, it was the reverse of the changes brought about by the Civil Rights movement of the Women’s Suffrage movement. While those movements were bottom up, the changing view of homosexuals was accomplished from the top down. The work of executives in Hollywood did the most to undermine the Codes and bring about the different view of gays and lesbians. Many of them worked with homosexual actors, some were likely homosexual themselves, and they had an interest in defying the stereotypes. They went about it in subtle ways, but given the power of movies, every small change in the way homosexual individuals were depicted caused a corresponding change in how the public viewed them. The changes slowly accumulated, each one building upon the progress made by the ones before, and eventually real erosion was apparent in the stereotyping of gays and lesbians.

The presence of other movements, such as the aforementioned Civil Rights movement, also helped the cause of equal treatment for homosexual individuals. This led to a change in thinking about homosexuality that is still not fully completed today. The main detail of this change, however, is that gays and lesbians are people that deserve equal treatment. They should not be forcibly “converted” to heterosexuality or considered less than whole humans (even though the thought at the time was still that there was something wrong with them).

These historical forces paved the way for individual gays and lesbians to start making a difference.

Section II

The subtext present in various films definitely changes as the decades progress. To illustrate, I’ll be looking at three separate movies from different sections of Barrios’ Screened Out. The first movie comes from the era of silent films. Made in 1928, The Matinee Idol has certain homosexual tones that are consistent with other movies made around the same time. These tones are primarily (if not exclusively) demonstrated in one individual, an Eric Barrymaine, played by David Mir. He is effeminate, slight, and has a thin moustache; in other words, he is the stereotypical “sissy” of the time period. He dresses in women’s clothing at one point, and even though he seems oblivious to his own sexuality, the rest of the characters all seem to understand immediately that he is gay.

This does not result in the kind of response that would become normal later, however. Instead, the acting troupe to which he belongs accepts him fully. They know all about him, and yet they seem supportive and friendly. In a time when very few gays or lesbians were being readily accepted by heterosexual individuals for who they were, Mir’s character is very fortunate.

This reflects, in many ways, the different attitude toward homosexuality and toward film that existed prior to the 1930s. Homosexuality had not taken on all of its implications as an abhorrent disease as of yet. Also, film was still relatively new; politicians and religious leaders had not had time to scrutinize the power that movies had, and as such it had certain freedoms to express more “controversial” themes.

The second film shows a clear and alarming change in how the movies depict homosexual individuals. In Rope, a Hitchcock film made in 1948 that was heavily based on the trial of Loeb and Leopold, gay actors Farley Granger and John Dall play a pair of murderous lovers. The sexual language and imagery is remarkably overt, and although nothing is ever stated directly, it should be clear to most movie-goers that the two men are in a same-sex relationship.

How did Hitchcock get away with putting barely concealed homosexuality in his movie? The answer should be obvious: by clearly demonstrating that there is nothing desirable or laudable about homosexuals. By making the two men so deplorable, he makes it clear that he is not advocating or supporting any notion of the decency and equality of gay individuals. Those who would protest over the sin of homosexuality are mollified, because the sinners get what they deserve in the end. This is highly unfortunate, though, because of the message it sends out. You must be crazy and murderous if you’re gay, and if you’re a murderer, then you’re probably gay too. Movies such as Rope began the negative trend of showing gays and lesbians as killers or as victims.

The third and final film that I’ll be analyzing here was remarkably progressive for its time. While most movies were still giving no images of gays and lesbians other than the twisted, depressed, suicidal, or homicidal caricatures that had been common in the past, The Haunting was showing a different side. Released in 1963, the movie has two characters that Barrios identifies as lesbians. One named Theo, played by Claire Bloom, is open and at peace with her sexuality. She is well-adjusted and suffers from none of the normal hang-ups that gays and lesbians had tended to suffer from in movies up to this point. The other woman, Eleanor, played by Julie Harris, denies any and all aspects of her sexuality. She calls Theo a mistake of nature and tries to convince herself that she has nothing in common with the other woman.

Interestingly and significantly, it is Eleanor and not Theo that suffers a nasty end in the movie. Theo loses nothing; she can return to her former life (and lover), but Eleanor is twisted by the haunted house and ultimately dies. Is this purely coincidental? I think not. It seems far more likely that part of the actual message here is that lying to ourselves and denying aspects of ourselves will only lead to misery and suffering. Being true to who and what we are might seem difficult, but it is the only way to achieve equilibrium and happiness.

Section III

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/Z/z/2/KnifedGayAgenda-e.jpg

The link above is to an image that would definitely count as a negative portrayal of gays and homosexuality. The image shows the Statue of Liberty being stabbed in the back with the message “The Gay Agenda Strikes at Our Civil Liberties!” The creator of the image is clearly trying to promote a message that gay people have a universal agenda, and it is, at least in part, to erode the civil liberties of all Americans. Where he or she derives this claim is utterly baffling. Homosexuals, like all groups of people, are not agreed upon anything, and it is likely that very few of them have any interest in stabbing liberty in the back or destroying the country. On the contrary, they do not want to take anything from anyone else, they simply want what other people already have. Those who refuse to treat gays and lesbians as human beings with rights and deserving of equality are the ones who threaten the civil liberties of others.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/monument_pics/manhattan/gay_liberation_sheridan_squ.jpg

This portrayal of gays and lesbians is decidedly more positive than the previous one. This image depicts four small statues erected in a park in Manhattan. Two of the statues are men, and two are women; as you might expect, the men are standing together, while the women are together on a park bench. The statues are clearly meant to serve as a message of tolerance and acceptance of all people. They are clearly loving and supportive of their respective partners, but not enough so as to be offensive to anyone. They are designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Everything about them is fairly understated and tailored to be acceptable. The reason for this is two-fold. The first reason is that there remains nothing anyone can complain about in regards to these statues other than their homosexuality; a bigoted complaint such as this would carry not weight. The second reason is that by making the statues very acceptable, understated, and beautiful, the idea is reinforced that homosexual individuals are no different than heterosexual individuals.