The portrayal and controversy of homosexuality in film has undergone almost a complete turnaround over the past century. While in today's entertainment industry, it is not difficult to find movies portraying homosexual characters, and even less difficult to find intense debate on the merits of these portrayals, the entertainment industry of the early twentieth century very seldom turned its attention toward homosexuality. Barrios explains that there was no demographic demanding such portrayals, that "people who were bold enough to consider themselves gay and lesbian existed either behind locked doors or in the most ghettoized subareas of the population."(15) It is for this reason that there were so few depictions of homosexuality during this era.
However, things began to shift during the twenties. During that period, homosexuals were portrayed in a very blunt, often caricatured manner. This escalated during the early thirties, the period of films after the start of the Depression known as the "pre-code" era. In a response to the pre-code era's increased portrayal of sexuality and violence, the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency's protests resulted in the establishment of the Motion Picture Production Code. Among other things, the Code banned the portrayal of same-sex relationships.
For the next several decades, gay characters were portrayed with much more subtle performances. Film producers could avoid interference from the enforcers of the Code with longing glances and effeminate characteristics. Though it was officially prohibited, homosexuality remained in films, and long as it was portrayed in a specifically implicit manner.
It was not until the advent of the sexual revolution in the 1960s that these restrictions were questioned. When it became clear that the Code prevented the depiction anything that in any way resembled reality, filmmakers began to challenge it or even ignore it completely.
However, though the enforced silence of films on homosexuality came to an end, the things that it began to say were not entirely positive. The increased visibility of homosexuality resulted in a negative reaction from the general population, and this increased homophobia was reflected by the film industry. At worst, gay characters were the villains, or died at the end of the movie. At best, they were to be pitied, as the victims of a psychological disease.
As time has continued to the modern era, homosexuals have been given broader and less negative (though not entirely extensive nor positive) portrayals in films, due largely to changing attitudes of the general population.
When we see things happen in television of movies, we must accept them for the truth of the plotline. However, often, we tend to accept these things beyond the scope of their intent, and apply them to the real world. This is a completely unconscious process on the part of viewers, though it has profound effects on the beliefs that they may hold on a subject, especially if it is one with which they have no real life experience.
For instance, in the early twentieth century, most homosexuals carefully hid their sexual identity from the world at large. Since most heterosexual people, then, had never met a gay person, their only ideas about their behavior came from the screen. These ideas have become deeply rooted in society's psyche, and to this day, in some capacity, still inform modern stereotypes about homosexuals.
Analysis of the 1929 movie The Broadway Melody provides telling insight about that era's attitude toward homosexuality. The character Del Turpe, a costume designer, is the stereotypical gay male at the time: he has effeminate characteristics, especially "a voice that seems to drawl and whine simultaneously." (38) He is used often as the butt of jokes, whether it be for his voice or for his assumed fondness for the color lavender. This movie tells us two things about the portrayal of gay men during this era: 1) that they were considered to fit the sissy archetype, and 2) that they were to be laughed at and humiliated, not hated and despised.
In 1940, Alfred Hitchcock's movie Rebecca featured a lesbian housekeeper named Mrs. Danvers, who held a terrifying fascination with her dead mistress Rebecca. Granted, this was in the midst of the Code era of films, so Mrs. Danvers sexuality was not brought to the forefront of any discussions. However, she has an eerie fascination with any of her late employer's possessions-- in one scene she rubs the contents of Rebecca's still full wardrobe over her skin. The subtext available here is that homosexuality is not a normal love: it is darker and more obsessive than heterosexual love, because there is something wrong with it.
In 1961, The Children's Hour was released. The most compelling subtext in the movie was the idea that homosexuality was something to be ashamed of. When Shirley MacLaine's character confesses her love for Audrey Hepburn's, she shouts, "I feel so damn sick and dirty I can't stand it anymore!" (307) She eventually kills herself. While the subtext of the other two movies gave heterosexuals ideas to hold about gay people, this movie gave gay people ideas to hold about themselves, specifically, as Barrios aptly puts it, "that self-loathing is their only option."
Part Three:
This is a positive representation of homosexuality, as love that is as positive as any force. It does not imply any sort of degenerate ideas, only the affection that is present between the two men. This is not an artistic image, exactly, but it is captured in a fairly artistic manner, considering the choice of angles.
This picture is a much more negative portrayal of homosexuality than the first image. It cheapens and degrades the idea of homosexual love, instead reducing it to an object of ridicule. This is certainly a product of the culture industry. It attempts to portray homosexuality as vulgar by showing two men naked together, shamelessly laughing at the camera. Their faces are contorted in strange, almost subhuman expressions, and their is no evidence of a loving connection between them.
