Amy I. Post 9

Amy Iarrobino

Post 9

1)

Historical forces were essential to the development and messages of films. History affected the American public whom the filmmakers aimed to please. Films began around the 1920s during the jazz era and the discovery of worldly pleasures such as booze and sex (Barrios, 22). As such, the film industry portrayed high living and was fraught with scandals in emulation of the Warren Harding presidency. The 1930s were dominated by the Great Depression and “In a reflection of Depression anxieties, and to lure cash-poor spectators into movie houses, the movies became rawer and racier, sometimes more adult” (Barrios, 55). Such films even portrayed people of the same sex romantically and sexually drawn to one another (Barrios, 55).The historical influence on film is seen in the rebirth of America and correspondingly American cinema in 1933 (Barrios, 95). Restoration of cinema began “between Roosevelt’s election and inauguration” (Barrios, 95) in which expectations were high for revival from the Depression. Thus, films became a means of escaping reality. Prior to 1935, policies began to change in which “government officials and moralists bent on suppressing homosexuality came out in force” (Barrios, 127). What advances were made by the pansy craze towards the acceptance of homosexuality were reversed and the Production Code became more strict in the same high-moralist time as the Prohibition (Barrios, 127). Just as the 21^st amendment boost national morale and was seen as a step forward, so too was the New Improved Full-Strength Production Code perceived to symbolize “supposed national well-being” (Barrios, 128). This trend coincides with the historical religious movement of the 1920s and 1930s in which the Roman Catholic Church and evangelists like Aimee Semple MacPherson and Billy Sunday gained force and extended into the political arena (Barrios, 131). Later the “strictures surrounding the repeal of Prohibition were one of the leading factors…[in] visible gayness being far less acceptable” (Barrios, 146-147). Escapism of the 1930s changed to negativism by the 1940s due to historical influences. In the 1940s cynicism dominated and was evoked by “the post-Depression and then postwar and nuclear ages” (Barrios, 184). The 1950s were a hypocritical time in which self-deceit and denial of anything/anyone different was predominant (Barrios 213). McCarthy purges began “of gays in government offices” (Barrios, 229). Such anti-gay feelings were reflected in movie censorship. However, the forces of the approaching conflict in Vietnam and the sexual revolution led to the morphing of gay roles in film. Movies at this time featured “struggles to retain virginity, feigned gayness as a tool of seduction, revenge and deceit beyond reckoning” (Barrios, 292). Turmoil in the nation ran high with social revolutions, political upheaval and war, drawing attention away from the monitoring of movies. The Celluloid Closet focused mainly on the period from 1967 to the 1980s (Barrios, 330). The 1970s was indicated to be a time of greater visibility and awareness of gays in correlation with Gay Liberation. However, in this case such liberation was not transferred to screen. Revival of gays on screen did not occur again until the 1980s. Although, “through the 1980s, with a gay-unfriendly administration and a health crisis of devastating gravity, the emphasis continued to shift to independent films and television, where the economic factors [were] more favorable to creativity” (Barrios, 363). Thus, the clear correlation is demonstrated between happenings in history and the metamorphosis of gay portrayal and censorship in film.

Effort of gay people also had an affect on the changing portrayal of gays. During the era of the talkies, or films with sound, “gay men were far more in evidence onscreen… [and] behind the scenes” (Barrios, 49). For example, the successful lesbian film director Dorothy Arzner used a common theme in all of her work of female bonding. Also, in the 1930s the development and enforcement of the Code led to disputes between Code officers and the studios. These disputes would be settled by a board of arbitration “made up entirely of studio executives” (Barrios, 57). With the gay influence off-screen, decisions tended to not favor the Code. However, by the 1930s “appeals filed against Production Code Administration decisions would no longer rest in the incestuous hands of the producers” (Barrios, 134). In the 1930s Hollywood duplicity remained despite the effort and frustration of the Code enforcing moralists (Barrios, 102) such that by the end of the decade the cartoonish image of gay men and women became one of a more naturalistic approach with movies such as the Wonder Bar which included a male-male dance between a “serious romantic couple” (Barrios, 123). Despite the strict moral code, efforts were still made to include gay characters. In movies such as The Picture of Dorian Gray the [gay-indicative] subtext “is evident to any viewer with half a brain, a circumstance which may or may not have included the moral and critical observers at the time of its production and release” (Barrios, 196). During the 1950s, even with the strict background of McCarthyism and anti-homosexual feelings, a few Hollywood movies used “subtle or sneaky insertions of gayness” (Barrios, 229). In addition, emerging groups of gays and lesbians started to prepare to “stand up for their identities and preferences” (Barrios. 248) in combination with the young culture of rock and roll and the civil rights movement. Overall, the consistent presence of gays within the film industry allowed for the continued drive to change the portrayal of gays in film. These advocates pushed and continue to push the limits of censorship and public opinion to eventually bring about change. Such efforts were made by all of those involved with the film industry, including viewer-opinion. Without their efforts little could be done to promote progress.

Evaluation of social and political forces is closely related to the force of history in changing the portrayal of gays on screen. Social and political influences seem to branch from historical happenings. Early sound films of the 1930s took advantage of the pansy craze and filmmakers used portrayals of gay people as a way “to cause talk and be novel and make a buck” (Barrios, 53). Although a code did exist, its strongest effects were not seen until the 1927 release of The Callahans and the Murphy’s which directly offended the Irish Catholics and thus the Roman Catholic Church, creating the social environment fertile for the development of the Code (Barrios, 56). The 1933 Roosevelt election attitude caused the Depressionist images of reality in cinema to transition to an escapist view. The trials and tribulations of the American people led to a need for escapism through film. As such, movies became “cheap, fast, sometimes funny, and above all vulgar” (Barrios, 97) and by February 1933 gays were again seen but this time in “prestigious projects as well as run-of-the-mill-fare (Barrios, 99). The Code on the other hand took a nominally more strict approach in which it became the American design of living, eliminating all vice (Barrios 126). The new Code was justified by the argument that the “new American generation was emotionally damaged” (Barrios, 129) and thus easily influenced and prone to emulate behaviors in movies. However, “the 1930 Production Code… had precisely the same effect as the ban on alcohol: it existed to be defied” (Barrios, 127). During 1935-1940, portrayal of gays became more secretive although much like gays in real life. They were well integrated and only perceivable to one another and sympathetic others (Barrios, 146). By the end of the 1930’s society also began to take interest in Freudianism and psychoanalysis. Freud advocated sympathy towards homosexuals which heightened tolerance and understanding but “there was also increased distrust, even demonization” (Barrios, 184-185). The films of the 1940s focused on expressionism and by the 1950s gave way to pessimism in contrast to the “purported national mood” (Barrios, 222). The mid-1950s was a time in which society was split with the change in race relations and the activation of the sexual revolution. The youth were sexually driven and “asserted itself for the first time in music, film, and other public forums” (Barrios, 236). The increased laxity in movie censorship led to increased visibility of homosexuals in 1960s and 1970s films. However, gays in these movies were portrayed as “more irrelevant and unappealing than ever” (Barrios, 316).

In summation, historical influence led to social and political change which created the opportunity for gay advocates to pave the way of change in the portrayal of gays on screen.

2)
Adorno emphasizes the multilayered nature of media in his article “How to Look at Television.” Adorno explains that hidden meanings in the subtext are conveyed “on the surface in jests, off-color remarks, suggestive situations, and similar devices” (Adorno, 222). Thus, these factors act as flags for scenes in need of special attention as they may contain a hidden meaning within the subtext.

The start of gay images in film can be seen in the early example of Algie, the Miner (1912). On the surface the main character, Algie, is heterosexual and has a girlfriend. However, Algie’s mannerisms demonstrate the OGTs of the time: “dandified air, fluttering hands, pursed and apparently rouged lips, sly smile, and eyes that he bats while fondling the barrel of a pistol” (Barrios, 17). Algie is sent to a mining camp to be “fixed” and become manly. A tougher, without makeup, rich Algie later returns to claim his bride (Barrios, 18). Thus, although homosexuality is indicated in the subtext, the ending of the film is indicative of the societal beliefs of the time that homosexuality is something like a disease which needs to be cured. Algie is cured and everyone lives happily ever after.

The film Why Bring That Up (1929) indicates the growing trend that although gay characters are present they are more necessary to “the general ambiance than to the drama” (Barrios, 43). In the film, the camera pans to show two chorus boys conversing. One says to the other, “And my new drapes are the most lovely shade of lavender.” The discussion of drapes and even the color lavender can be considered effeminate and homosexual subtext. The discussion, however, is barely audible and is “as if director George Abbott felt he had to do it but didn’t want it to provide too much of a distraction from the main plot” (Barrios, 43).

The portrayal and message sent about homosexuals continued to transform in the mid to late 1930s in which stereotypes of gays would be used for laughs or exotic sophistication. For example, in Morocco (1930) the main character, Amy, dresses as a man, kisses a young woman on the lips and throws a flower to Gary Cooper (Barrios, 63). The subtext suggests bisexuality in the OGTs of cross-dressing and kissing of a person of the same sex. Again, the gay character is used for laughs and the message is sent that gays are comic.

This message about gays changes by the late 1940s in which gays are portrayed as villains. For example, in Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) two men conspire to and commit the perfect murder together for the sake of thrill-seeking. The men are indicated to have refined taste in food and attire. Farley Granger plays the submissive “wife” and John Dall the dominant “husband” (Barrios, 211). Such subtext indicates the false belief that gay relationships must include one dominant and one submissive partner. Also, the film exemplifies the way in which films of this time shed negative light on gays as sinister and twisted.

Notice that all changes in cinema seem to be reflections of the dominant social beliefs about homosexuals. Just as the argument was made that the illusions presented by Reifenstahl’s Triumph of the Will helped to create the reality, so too it may be argued that the attitude towards gays portrayed in movies helped create the real attitudes towards this group in American society.

3)

A positive image of a gay person can be found in Father of the Bride (1991) and Father of the Bride II (1995). In these films the character Franck Eggelhoffer played by Martin Short is homosexual. He is portrayed to possess positive qualities such as loyalty, creativity and enthusiasm. Franck and his male assistant help the Bank’s family move through the life challenges of planning a wedding, giving a daughter to marriage, expanding the home for a baby and delivering two babies. He and the Bank’s family become friends and Franck always does all he can to help them when he is called upon. Franck has the OGTs of his designer attire, weak wrists, fluttering enthusiasm, male partner, higher tone of voice and emotional personality. These qualities are similar to those indicated in Screened Out to be OGTs; Franck is especially similar to the 1912 character Algie in Algie, the Miner. The difference today is the Franck does not need to be “fixed.”

A negative image of a gay person is conspicuous in the television series Prison Break. The character T-bag played by Robert Knepper is a homosexual who is the dominant partner that forces the weaker male prisoners into submission. He even attempts to make sexual advances on protagonist Michael Scofield. His status as a villain is established in his acts of cold-blooded murder, torture, bribery, cheating, blackmailing and near compromise of Scofield’s escape plans. The villainous nature of this character is reminiscent of the duo in the late 1940s film Rope. In a similar fashion, the homosexual T-bag in Prison Break is portrayed to be sinister and dangerous.

In comparison to the Nazi ideal masculine body, neither Franck nor T-bag meets standards. Both lack the athleticism and structure of the ideal male form. Thus, in the physical sense these images may be seen as degenerate. Both Father of the Bride and Prison Break can be considered products of culture industry as they are marketed and produced for profit to be sold to the masses in theaters/television and on DVD. Prison Break’s commitment to culture industry may be more strongly seen in the way in which the writers use cliff-hangers and producers run commercials in an attempt to ensure continued audience.