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.