Aaron Post 9

From the very start of his book Screened Out, Richard Barrios makes one thing perfectly clear: “the face of gay images is a changing one” (Barrios p.16) Perceptions of homosexuality are constantly changing due to varying social and political factors. The movies have always been an important part of American life. They portray what we want our lives to be like; the movies show us what we value. Because of this, the way homosexuality is portrayed in the movies often translates to real life. When we realize how much film can influence society, we realize how important it is to look at what the movies we see are teaching us.

Part 1

The first form of movies were silent films. In silent films everything had to be exaggerated in order to get the point across. Because people could not talk, you couldn’t learn anything about a character by the way he delivered his lines. This had a huge affect on how gay characters were portrayed in early cinema productions. The director would have to use obviously gay traits and overdo everything. Because homosexuality was often equated with effeminacy, the characters would be given extremely feminine characteristics. This idea of caricature shows up as early as 1912 in the film Algie, The Miner. Barrios describes Algie as “a card-carrying flamer” and names some of the characteristics that give that impression: “the dandified air, fluttering hands, pursed and apparently rouged lips, sly smile, and eyes that he bats while fondling the barrel of a pistol which he examines as if it were cloisonné (or something less elegant)” (Barrios, p.17). Even when sound was added to films, these overdone gay characters remained, whether the caricature was necessary or not.

When talking films began to arise, so did new ways of portraying gay characters in movies. Movie directors would often use code words such as “pansy” or “lavender” to denote that a character was gay without having to openly say it and risk offending anyone and therefore losing viewers and money. Many movies were created that took place behind the scenes of Broadway shows (such as The Broadway Melody) and many times the costume designer would be portrayed as a homosexual and called some of these code names. It is important to note that many of these stereotypes (such as the gay costume designer who is overly concerned with fashion) have had a huge affect on society and still exist today.

In the 1930’s, just as the depression was beginning to take its toll, the MPPDA”s Production Code was ratified. This code made homosexual portrayals more difficult to do in mainstream cinema. Homosexual characters would have to be brought in to the film quite subtlety and they could never live “happily ever after”. Code approved movies had to show the gay or lesbian character either come to ruin or be cured of his or her “disease” and get married. For the most part this pattern persisted until the ratings system took the place of the code in 1968. An example of this vilifying of homosexuals can be seen very clearly in Alfred Hitchcock’s film Rope. In this movie the two psychotic murderers are both portrayed as homosexuals.

The movie Rope leads me to an important point. Although the documentary film Celluloid Closet shows lots of homosexuals complaining about how they are either portrayed negatively in movies or are not portrayed enough in movies, I have found little evidence to suggest that the gay community is doing much to change this. The movie Rope is based on the famous Leopold-Loeb case, a very bad blemish on the reputation of gays. Leopold and Loeb were a gay couple who murdered just for the sake of taking people’s lives. The story was all over the news and caused a huge uproar at the time. If this is the only real-life portrayal of a gay couple that most Americans are seeing then how does the gay community expect to be portrayed in a positive light in film? People are going to write movies about what they know. Obviously not all homosexuals are psychopaths, but if that is what the one big news story of the time involves, then people will start to see that false perception as reality.

The next historical event that had a profound affect on gay cinema was World War II. During this era some films attempted to make a political statement by portraying men who stayed home and didn’t fight in the war as gay characters. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the 1942 film Star-Spangled Rhythm. This movie “purported to show the inverse of wartime women at work: men at home assuming women’s former roles of gossipy cardplayers” (Barrios, p.171). This could be seen as a statement against men who didn’t fight in the war. Barrios raises this question on p.172 when he asks, “Was it an attempt to rouse the ‘real men’ still out there into joining the war by branding them as queers? Was it intended to be demeaning?” We don’t know for sure, but what we do know is that world War II had a profound affect on gay portrayals in cinema.

In 1968, the Production Code was thrown out the window, and a new Ratings System was ushered in. The ratings system gave the director’s freedom over what they showed in their movies. They know longer had to worry about adhering to the guidelines of the Production Code. The consequences would instead by an ‘R’ or possibly even an ‘X’ rating which restricted the audience that would be allowed to view the film. One of the first big X-rated films to hit the theaters was The Killing of Sister George. The film was controversial and erotic just because it could be. Barrios quotes Renata Adler on this subject. She describes one of the most controversial scenes in which the viewer hears Susannah York’s “noisy simulation of an orgasm” (Barrios, p. 346) as “the longest, most unerotic, cash-conscious scene between a person and a breast there has ever been on screen, and outside of a surgeon’s office” (Barrios, p.346). This is another point in which gay directors had an opportunity to portray homosexual characters in a positive light, but instead go for money-making shock-value. “It seemed as if there was so much promise” (Barrios p.363), but this promise and opportunity seems to have been wasted. Gay portrayals on screen have become more prevalent, and gay characters have even started to play larger roles in some films (take Brokeback Mountain for example), but, as was mentioned in class, gay characters still serve a certain purpose in the movie, they are not yet a normalcy in film. The purpose of the gay character is to be gay, whereas the straight character usually is important for more than just his sexual preference.

Part 2

The film Algie, The Miner was directed by Alice Guy-Blache and made its first appearances in theaters in 1912. The main character, Algie, was played by Billy Quick. Algie has a girlfriend but other than that there is nothing heterosexual about him. The movie ends with Algie being cured of his “queerness” and returning to his hometown to marry his girlfriend. At this point in history it was acceptable for characters that could be suspected of homosexuality to live “happily ever after”, but they had to somehow be cured of their disease. From the portrayal of gays in this film, we can learn a lot about how people who lived at this time viewed homosexuality. They didn’t equate homosexuality with sexual deviance as much as they equated it with men acting like women or vise versa. The sexual aspect of it was kept quiet and the “pansy” stereotype was seen as a humorous aversion in many movies.

The Sign of the Cross was directed by controversial movie director Cecil B. Demille. The movie “premiered in December 1932” (Barrios, p.82), but would be altered and re-released more than once because of the controversy it caused. This film does not ignore the sexual side of homosexual portrayals as some of the more playful early films did. The famous “naked moon” scene that caused most of the controversy seems to release all the sexual tension that had been building up over the years. The scene is basically an orgy that includes two women together. Adorno would see this as evidence of the sexual tension of the era. The people wanted to see sex on screen but didn’t want to admit it. This is why scenes such as “the Naked Moon” caused problems with the Production Code, but were generally accepted by audiences across the nation. People want to be shocked; they want to have something to tell their friends about when they leave the theater.

The Children’s Hour shows a different kind of portrayal of homosexuality. It isn’t a playful depiction as in Algie, the Miner, or a celebration of sex as in The Sign of the Cross. This movie shows the darker side of homosexuality: that it must always end in ruin. At the time the movie was made (1961) homosexual characters were expected to either be cured or die. In this case, the lesbian character kills herself. The plot of the movie basically consists of a little girl who spreads rumors that the head-mistresses of her school are lesbians and ruins their careers. This movie shows that there was not a very positive perception of homosexuality at this time in history. It portrays lesbians as tortured souls who hate themselves so much that they want to commit suicide.

Part 3

the image on the left is from www.cpyu.org

the image on the right is from www.artstor.org

The image on the left is the cover of a book given the title, “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality”. The point of the book is to give parent’s tips and different things to do to make sure that their kids don’t turn out gay later in life. This goes back to the portrayals of homosexuality in movies that showed homosexuality as a disease that must be cured by the end credits. This is certainly a negative portrayal of homosexuality. If the goal of the gay community is to have their lifestyle accepted as a normal part of life, books like this do the opposite of what they want. Adorno would see this as a “culture industry” product that targets a conservative audience. Parents with very conservative values who have been hearing things such as the belief that the lack of a father figure leads to homosexuality would buy this book and use its parenting tips to ensure that their kid is safe from the “disease” of homosexuality.

The picture on the right is an untitled photo taken by Herb Ritts in 1990. I would argue that this photo is a positive portrayal. It glorifies the human body, but in a complete different way than Hitler’s good German art would. While Hitler’s art was trying to display “beauty without sensuality” (Mosse), Ritts’s photo is an attempt to celebrate the sexual aspect of a homosexual relationship. The gay community would see this as a positive portrayal because they are being integrated into the realm of sexual depictions. We have been seeing heterosexual depictions of sexuality for a long time through art and especially pornography in which a woman “makes her sexuality into something any man who wants to buy and hold in his hand for three dollars and fifty cents” (Steiner, p.74). This picture shows that homosexual depictions are now being allowed in that same realm.

The way homosexuality is depicted in all areas of life has changed significantly over the years. There are many historical events that played a large role in altering the way we view homosexuality, and many of these changes played out in the movie-making industry. Views of homosexuality have come a long way in the past century, but if the gay community wants their lifestyle to become a normal part of life, there is still work to be done.