Ashley C. Post 9

Ashley Cannaday

1) There are few American films before the 1920’s that have not been lost, and in these that have been recovered, gay traces are extremely rare. It is not until the creation of the studio system of filmmaking that gays started to be depicted regularly in American cinema. These portrayals were, for the most part, very stereotypical. The view of the time was that gay men were women trapped in a man’s body, and vice versa. A gay man was seen as a “dandified pansy” (Barrios Pg. 16), and a fairy. The token gay character had certain mannerisms that gave him away immediately, such as “the dandified air, fluttering hands, pursed and apparently rouged lips, sly smile, and eyes that he bats…” (Barrios Pg. 17) which are seen in the 1912 film Algie, the Miner. Gay men had a flower in the lapel, a thin mustache, and a handkerchief in hand, while lesbians wore a suit, jacket, or tie, and toted a monocle, top hat, or cigar.

The 1920’s saw a “heightened attention to offscreen Hollywood morality” (Barrios Pg. 22). This lead in turn to a focus on onscreen morality, and the result was the creation of the self-policing system called the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America. However, at this time it did not have much affect. State censorship boards had some power, but for the most part the studio could do whatever it pleased without fearing repercussions. In fact, the mid-1920’s saw an increase in homosexual references. The sissies became the popular depiction of gay men, appearing as costume designers and interior decorators, with the formula that “effeminate = gay” (Barrios Pg. 24). In fact, many film studios employed homosexuals in the professions listed above. These sissies, however, were stripped of sexuality entirely. Lesbians in this time period were seen as “mannish women unawakened by the love of the right man”, creating the stereotype of the Repressed Mannish Spinster (Barrios Pg. 33).

With the advent of sound in film, and the creation of “talkies”, a new era in American cinema was ushered in. Barrios talks of it as a revolution: “Audiences’ perceptions were refitted, viewing habits were upended, methods of production and exhibition were completely overhauled, careers were ended and begun, fortunes were made and lost – all in a matter of months.” Musicals were all the rage, and a majority of them were centered around backstage stories. Gay characters, depicted as sissy costume designers, were more prevalent than ever before. Now, a new factor played into their stereotype: their high pitched, girly voice and bitchy tones. “With harsh clarity, sound erased illusion” (Barrios Pg. 56).

The 1930’s saw the effects of the stock market crash on not only American politics and economy, but on cinema and the portrayal of homosexuals. Movies in this era were an escape from the dreary everyday life of the Depression. They were frank and fun. In this time when families were barely making ends meet, studios somehow had to convince the American people to part with their money and visit the theater. The result was “movies that became rawer and racier, sometimes more adult” (Barrios Pg. 55). Ironically, this was occurring at the same time as the creation of the infamous Motion Picture Production Code. The Code listed what would and what would not be decent in films, and the MPPDA reviewed scripts to see to it that they complied with the Code. Sex perversion, i.e. homosexuality, was on the list of don’ts. However, the film studios were still largely in control. Any disagreements between the MPPDA and studio executives were handled by a board of arbitration, which was made up entirely of studio executives. Needless to say, the studios often got their way, and the attitude of “the rules are made to be broken” prevailed. Producers defied the Code, arguably because they knew they could get away with it. Movies regularly contained gay and lesbian characters, and a good portion of the audience recognized them as such. In fact, 1933 saw “the greatest number and variety of gay portrayals thus far” (Barrios Pg. 96). While gays in this era were used as the butt of jokes, they were not necessarily judged or condemned (Barrios Pg. 59). 1933 was the peak of the “pansy craze”, and gays in film became increasingly forward with their sexuality.

Because of the Depression, the film industry had to find new ways to draw in viewers, causing them to “rethink its priorities, its material, and its audience” (Barrios Pg. 60). Productions couldn’t be too costly, but they had to turn a profit. The result was a more honest and frank film industry that completely disregarded the Code. Homosexuals in these films were still stereotypically there for humor, but no longer were these characters asexual. Their sexuality could subtly be discerned. There had always been homosexuals in film, but never had their actual sexuality been so obvious. For example, in the prison drama Hell’s Highway it was fairly obvious that one of the female inmates was having an affair with the head (female) guard. Not only were these blatantly gay movies accepted, some were praised. Cavalcade, a notoriously homosexual film, won an Academy Award for Best Picture. It was the first time a respected, prestigious movie had shown any traces of gay relationships. This transition was consistent with the New Deal atmosphere in America.

In 1934, a cleanup of film began with a strengthening of the reinforcement of the Code. This was at least partially due to the film The Sign of the Cross, which was “the first major American film to create significant controversy over its homoerotic content” (Barrios Pg. 83). Another factor that led to the revival of the Code was the greater erotic impact given to gays in film, so that homosexuality was less idle, and more of a threat, for the first time in history. Laws were being passed that forbid drag queens from being in public, and censorship of drag entertainment had begun (Barrios Pg. 116). In film, homosexuality was depicted more realistically, less flamboyantly. The Algies of gay cinema were being replaced with the Mr. Pangborns. The new characters were less over the top and cartoonish, and could fit in in the straight world. Also, the relationships of homosexuals was beginning to be taken more serious romantic relationship. All of these factors lead to the strengthening of the Production Code and the creation of the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency (Barrios Pg. 124). This was not just a crack down on homosexuality, but sexuality and undecency in every way. “Married couples were forced to sleep in twin beds, navels were eternally hidden from sight, no immoral or illegal acts went unpunished and on and on” (Barrios Pg. 125). With the threat of government intervention, the Code was now mandatory and very enforceable. Films adhering to the Code could not have the slightest trace of homosexuality. It encouraged conformity, and discouraged ambiguity, in film and in life. Government policies were more determined than ever to suppress all things homosexual. Gays could be kept out of public establishments because they were inherently “disorderly.”

The Motion Picture Research Council had come to the scientific conclusion in 1934 that American cinema was corrupting the youth of the nation, causing them to be “emotionally damaged, prone to emulation of movie violence, and overwhelmingly susceptible to lustful or aberrant behavior” (Barrios Pg. 129). There could not be a hint of gayness in films lest our sons grow up to be man-loving pansies, heaven forbid. The ascension of Joe Breen assured that this would not happen. Breen was as strict as possible with the enforcement of the Code. All films must comply, with no exceptions, resulting in many plots that made little sense after reediting. Thus, the fate of gays in the films became the fate of gays in real life: they were there, but still somehow invisible, and incapable of emotion. They were “constantly present, fully integrated into the dominant hetero world, yet knowable only to those who would know them” (Barrios Pg. 146).

With the ideas of Freud sweeping the nation, the causes and treatment of homosexuality had changed. Freud was sympathetic of homosexuals, but there was distrust. Homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder, something dangerous, unhealthy, and perverse that could with any luck be cured. This outlook can be seen in the popular noir films of the time, which thrived on “ambiguity and multiple meanings” where people “hid in the dark” (Barrios Pg. 185). A small number of films slid past the Production Code because they argued the point that to best prevent homosexuality, one must first understand it and its dangers.

1945 saw the beginning of leniency towards the code with the retirement of Will Hays, an aging Breen, and a lieutenant to Breen (Shurlock) who was much less rigid (Barrios Pg. 198). Gradually over the years, more and more could be gotten away with in films. Gays could be portrayed more obviously in films, and as such the portrayal of gays turned to a witty, acerbic, and even bitchy character who saw himself as superior. With the popularity of the Loeb-Leopold trial in 948, gays began to be conveyed as less harmless, and possibly threatening, weak, corrupt, and evil, personifying “nasty urges and flaunted amorality” (Barrios Pg. 208). This negative portrayal of gays as villains remained undiminished for quite a time.

With the civil rights movements concerning race and gender, it was natural that a move for sexual equality would follow. Many homosexuals began to talk about fighting the oppression, but this went unnoticed and ignored initially. Film went on as usual. But eventually America had to addresses this movement for diversity. As a result of the changing times, the Code overlooked many movies containing some prestige. Gays may have been more evident, but they were still viewed in a non-sexual way initially, and it was still not approved of. An amendment to the Code allowed for homosexuality in films, as long as it was treated with “care, discretion and restraint.” After a war, civil rights movement, and assassinations, the view of homosexuality was starting to change for the better. More organizations were formed, and a greater number of people were coming out of the closet. No longer was homosexuality seen as a disease, but a condition. Gradually, acceptance was being achieved through the efforts of events such as the Stonewall riot. Finally, gays could be depicted as the heroes, the good guys, as in the 1990’s movie Philadelphia.

Source

2) The 1932 film The Sport Parade is described as “…high camp. Boy meets boy; boy loses boy, boy gets boy” (Barrios Pg. 76). Starring William Gargan and Joel McCrea, the film centers on two Dartmouth football stars who are best friends, but take separate paths after graduation. One boy gets a job as a sports columnist, while the other becomes a sellout wrestler in an arena or fixed fights and corruption. Johnny falls in love with Irene, who is in love with Sandy, causing a rift in the boys’ friendship. All ends well after Sandy refuses to throw a fight, and he ends up with Irene. This film is riddled with gay sub-text from the very beginning. It constantly alludes to bisexual male bonding. The two football stars are very close, and at one point they play around in a shower scene, where Gargan snaps a towel at McCrea’s butt. Originally, there was a line about a “bisexual built for two” but it was later cut out. It is plainly obvious that the two boys are emotionally very close, and an unsual amount of focus in the film is given to McCrea’s physique. Early in the film, there is a wrestling match scene where two stereotypical pansies are in the audience. Apparently, the violence is two much for the sissies, as one says to the other “Oh God, this is just too brutal. Let’s go!” The fit the stereotypical sissies mold: skinny, pale, and wrist waving. These gay lovers, completely effeminate, are the exact opposite of the football stars, yet both sets of lover are gay. This conveys the message that not all homosexual men are the pansy fairy type. Many are more subtle, and possibly still pursue women.

Source

In Alfred Hitchcock’s 1951 film Strangers on a Train, mama’s boy Bruno meets tennis star Guy on a train ride. The two get to talking, and Guy mentions his desire for a divorce from his wife, and Bruno mentions his hatred for his father. Bruno comes up with a scheme where Guy would murder Bruno’s father, and in exchange Bruno would murder Guy’s estranged wife. This would ensure that neither get caught, because there is no connection between the two people who have just met on the train. Guy takes this as a joke, while Bruno is very serious about it. Many signs make it clear that Bruno is a gay character: the way he dresses, the way he speaks, his love for his mother, the way he seems to try and seduce Guy. The homosexuality in this film is basically undeniable. However, Bruno is not the typical sissy gay character. Rather, he is witty, bright, and charming. He is arguable the cleverest and most liked characters in the film, despite being a psychotic killer. In fact, the whole outlook of the film seems to make the bad guys, Guy and Bruno, the heroes. The overall sub-text of Strangers on a Train is very contradictory. At first glance, the movie connotes that homosexuals are psychotic and dangerous. Bruno had his own father killed. The depiction is that gays cannot be trusted, and you must watch your back around them. On the other hand, Bruno can almost be seen as a role model to homosexuals (killing aside). He depicts homosexuals as more than just effeminate pansies, knowing more than just good color schemes. It sends the message that a homosexual male can be more clever, witty, and charming than any heterosexual. Ultimately, however, for most viewers the good does not out-weigh the bad.

Source

The 1962 film That Touch of Mink starred Doris Day and Cary Grant. Day plays a woman fighting off unemployment, barely making ends meet, who comes across an extremely wealthy Grant. The two fall in love, and the movie centers around whether the two will “do the deed” before marriage. In the film, Gig Young plays the assistant to Grant who is alluded to being gay throughout the entire film. Young is extremely obsessed with Grant, and discusses his love life to his psychotherapist. Through a series of mishaps, the therapist gets the mistaken idea that Young is in an open gay relationship with Grant. The final scene of the movie leaves Young alone with Day and Grant’s baby, who the therapist mistakes for Grant and Young’s child. The therapist is extremely distraught, and That Touch of Mink was met with much resistance by the Code. Ultimately, the sub-text of the film centers around Young’s homosexual portrayal. Young was taken to be a serious homosexual by his therapist, and this simply was unacceptable. At this point in the weakening of the Code, the presence of homosexuals in film was more tolerated. The problem was that Young was not only perceived as a gay man, but as a gay man in an open gay relationship and sexually active. It was seen as disgusting that his desires were acted upon.

Source

3) The 1999 film Cruel Intentions, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, and Reese Witherspoon, gives an extremely negative portrayal of homosexuals, as well as bisexuals. The name accurately describes the movie. Gellar and Phillippe play step sister and brother who are sexually promiscuous and make a cruel game of love. Gellar’s character is the ultimate evil, slutty bitch who tries to pass as a good girl. One scene shows a passionate kiss between Gellar and another woman, who she is teaching (through practice) how to attract a man. Gellar is conniving and evil, and in the end she is exposed as such to everyone who once thought of her as a wholesome girl, her reputation being ruined forever. I would classify Cruel Intentions as art, rather than a culture industry product. Your average mainstream film does not usually have a plot such as that in Cruel Intentions. I can honestly say I’ve never seen a movie like it. The portrayal of Gellar’s character and homosexuals is that of truly evil and vindictive people. Simply put, they are morally bankrupt, corrupt on every level.

Source

One positive contemporary portrayal of homosexuality can be seen in the television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The reality show centers around the Fab 5, a group of openly gay men, who specialize in fashion, food and wine, grooming, culture, and interior design. In each episode, the Fab 5 rescue a pathetically helpless and tasteless straight male, giving him advice on how to dress and live more sophisticatedly and with more style. The straight male, and his house, are given a make-over, and everyone leaves happy. As homosexuals, the Fab 5 are portrayed as witty, cultured, and fashionable. They use their knowledge and skill to “make over the world. One straight guy at a time.” While I would classify Queer Eye as a culture industry product, its message is of unity through diversity. There is no denying that the show is a replica of the many reality TV make-over shows that are already on television, but with a slight twist. Queer Eye was one of the first of its kind to use the openly gay mentors as its hook. Even though this is exactly the type of culture industry product that Adorno warned about in “How to Look at Television,” it does have an underlying positive message. At this time in our history, people are able to put aside their prejudices and stereotypes and come together as one mankind to help each other out. The Fab 5 are homosexual, while the man they make-over is straight. Yet, this difference in sexuality does not play a real role in the show, other than that the gay men are more cultured. The point of the show is not for the gay men to hit on the straight male, trying to seduce and convert him. Rather, sexuality is put aside for the sake of enlightenment.