Jenn Post 9

Jenn Shea

PART ONE

The idea of pre-code, code, and post-code eras is what stands as the backbone for categorizing films portraying gay and lesbian characters. These different time periods determine the strength to which the filmmaker was able to include a homosexual gaze, so to speak. At times, an audience was able to view homosexuality in film without conflict or much reaction or recognition at all, while at other time, innuendos had to be carefully interwoven into characters, music, hand movements, etc in order to surpass the vigilant eyes of the enforcers of the production code. At last, films, while permitted to portray gay aspects, were minimally popular and acknowledged by the general public, and are still slowly integrating themselves into what is accepted and respected in film by audiences. For the most part, much of the ways in which gay people were portrayed and perceived was governed by the Production Code and its officials. Although gay and even straight filmmakers continued casting gay actors or writing in gay characters, which can indeed be recognized as a consistent and persistent effort and attempt to maintain a representative gay presence within film, there was no outright action or protest by the gay community or filmmakers to bring justice to film by advocating gay rights and equal representation in the film industry. It is not until recent television shows like Will & Grace (1998) and films such as Brokeback Mountain (2005) that an audience has been subjected to an outright portrayal of male homosexuality, or any overt homosexuality, portrayed in film and allowed to be seen in cinemas. Perhaps this is due in part by the greater acceptance and leniency of the film industry, or perhaps the difference lies within the fact that not until this century has a very strong effort been made to promote and advocate gay rights in this country in particular.

In the Pre-Code era, the viewing of homosexuality in film was largely characterized by ambivalent acceptance, recognition of an actor’s skill despite disagreement of apparent sexual orientation, or outright denial by the audience of any such sexual “deviance.” As Barrio notes, oftentimes, “What seems gay now was seen as nothing out of the ordinary a hundred years ago, and men or women engaged in same-sex dancing was not necessarily a cause for raised eyebrows” (16). In the early 1900s, perhaps because of the goings on of the “roaring 20s,” individuals were not so quick to assume that just because two individuals of the same sex were interacting meant that they shared a homosexual interest in one another. Furthermore, as early 20^th century progressed, individuals became aware of homosexual portrayals only if they looked for it or understood it. Otherwise, audiences were mostly oblivious to interwoven innuendos.

In reference to Charlie Chaplin, Barrio notes, “Film, it seems, was starting to speak to those who were already in on the joke…Most important, audiences—which for a Chaplin movie would be vast—knew what was going on” (18-19). In regard to how homosexuals were viewed, Barrio discusses the idea that they must somehow be gender-reversed: “…what gays and lesbians were considered at the time, a man trapped in a woman’s body and vice versa…The message being broadcast is, again, of the double standard: female gender-bending is more to be tolerated than male…a man in drag is a transgressor, but a woman dressed as a man can be exciting…” (21). Finally, despite the introduction of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America under Will H. Hays, filmmakers were still able to get away with as much homosexuality in films as they were before this institution with minimal interference. This pre-code time was known for its tendencies to “push up the heat” in spite of the institution of still very lax codes.

Beginning in the 1930s, the codes took a stronger hold in the screening and approval of films. However, in the beginning, homosexuality was not the main concern. It was treated by audiences with both little acceptance and little acknowledgment. When it was portrayed, homosexuality was seen in very stereotypical terms, and its portrayal slowly slipped its way more and more into 20^th century film. In an attempt to tighten controls on film content, the Motion Picture Production Code was formed and was written by a committee of predominantly Roman Catholic laymen and Clergy. Again, despite the development of these codes, as Barrios notes, “The gay codes operated onscreen in much the same fashion as a red necktie would function on a metropolitan street, conveying gayness to those in the know, often past the eyes of outsiders” (61). Those who were not looking for homosexuality within film continued to remain oblivious or ignorant to its increasing and unpunished presence. During the time of World War II, which was characterized by “ennui,” filmmakers were able to get away with a great deal of homosexual content. Similarly, with the inauguration of Roosevelt and his New Deal relief, studios obliged to let filmmakers pass a great deal of material that would not be code-appropriate. However, in 1932, as Barrios notes, the release of The Sign of the Cross with its controversial portrayal of an orgy and additional suggestive homosexual untertones snapped the officials of Production Code to attention: “…The Sign of the Cross was the first American film to create significant controversy over its homoerotic content, starting ripples that eventually affected the entire movie industry” (83). 1933 set a record for the most people to get away with inappropriate content in film, which led to more rigid enforcement of the Codes and attempts to evade homosexuality within film through thorough editing of the script. In 1934, PCA seals established by the newly formed Legion of Decency required that all movies be marked as being fit for public exhibition. It was then when Joe Breen became the ruthlessly strict enforcer of film cleanliness and appropriateness, of course meaning abhorrence of homosexuality. In addition, with the coming of the 1940s, not only were gay portrayals largely “screened out,” but many production companies began producing films in which homosexuality connoted evil. However, also in that decade was seemingly the first strongly offensive action taken to stand up for equal rights of sexual portrayal when Charles K. Feldman took action to stop the censorship of homosexuality in film. As noted by Barrios, “…he took special pleasure in breaking down Code limitations, risking the denial of a code seal, and glorifying in the resulting controversy, publicity, and profit” (297). Also in the 1940s, Johnston became the new head of the MPAA, and with the combination of his leniency and the determination of film companies, “…filmmakers developed more understated techniques to convey their points to audiences without Code interference”(Barrios 199). In this late period of the Code era, homosexuals also began being portrayed as straight or turned straight by the end of the movie. Finally, in the 1950s, the codes became seemingly anachronistic.

Even after 1961 when a code amendment was instated stating “In keeping with the cultures the mores and values of our time, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may now be treated with care, discretion and restraint,” acceptance of, homosexuality in film was a slow process, and filmmakers did not help by making dull and meaningless films. As Barrios notes, filmmakers did not take advantage of the new freedoms granted to them, but, “Instead, through fear and ignorance and a penny-mongering philosophy, the movie people made gayness to seem more irrelevant and unappealing than ever” (316). Finally, in 1968, the rating system replaced the codes and films were approved based solely on the final cut. In the 1980s, a gay unfriendliness arose, but from the 1990s on, there has been gradual progress to a more accepting, though still not nearly embracing, American perception of homosexuality on screen.

PART TWO

In Adorno’s “How to Look at Television,” he discusses the role of hidden messages, or what may be called “subtexts” in television, which can for the purposes of this question also be applied to film. Adorno suggests that the hidden message may play an even bigger part in the understanding and message of the film because these subtexts are grasped by the audience without too much notice. Adorno states, “…the hidden message may be more important than the overt since this hidden message will escape the controls of consciousness, will not be ‘looked through,’ will not be warded off by sales resistance, but is likely to sink into the spectator’s mind…The full effect of the material on the spectator cannot be studied without consideration of the hidden meaning in conjunction with the overt one…” (221). In addition, Adorno suggests that these hidden messages appear in suggestive situations and innuendos that are only sometimes perceived by an keen viewer: “…a number of repressed gratifications which play a large role on the hidden level are somehow allowed to manifest themselves on the surface in jests, off-color remarks, suggestive situations, and similar devices” (222). Finally, Adorno uses the example of a gender reversal and a conversation that insinuate homosexuality to demonstrate the role of such a hidden message (233-234).

In the early 1900s, many homosexual tendencies were overlooked by the audience or were only perceived by those who understood the difference between straight and gay mannerisms within film. Thus, many films got away with what an audience would see today as “openly gay tendencies,” namely exaggerated hand gestures, crossed legs, and an effeminate persona in general. For example, Barrios notes in regards to Alice Guy-Blanché’s Algie the Miner from 1912 that, “Even this early, all the mannerisms are there for the filmmakers to heighten and caricature: 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)” (17). This film involves a man named Algie being sent out west by his fiancée’s father to prove his manhood. Such gay tendencies include when he kisses two men for giving him directions. This film involves the prototype of feminine man befriending another man only to learn to be straight and return to marry a woman. Thus, at the time, homosexuality was portrayed as something to be cured.

In Douglas Fairbanks Sr.’s Reaching for the Moon from 1931, the idea of masked or closeted homosexuality is expressed when an electrician finds two men embracing and the men are forced to explain what was going on. As Barrio describes, “After verifying that Daniels is willing to return male affection, he has Fairbanks climb into a patio swing with him, the better to teach him the moves as well as the words. As Horton puts his arms around Fairbanks, he starts with the love talk: ‘From the moment we met, I knew this had to happen’” (66). At this time, more and more audience members were able to recognize same-sex affection.

Hal Roach’s Turnabout from 1940 best portrays Adorno’s example of gender reversal, as the male takes on feminine characteristics and the woman appears masculine: “The outer bodies remained the same, while the voices changed. Sally-into-Tim was thus portrayed by John Hubbard with feminine mannerisms and a woman’s voice in male attire. As Tim in Sally’s body, Carole Landis spoke with Hubbard’s voice while smoking cigars and acting jauntily athletic. This was, in sum, the farthest-out queer material to reach the screen in seven years, and the scenes of Pangborn flirting with Hubbard were too vivid for the PCA to overlook” (Barrios 165). This demonstrates the timeless portrayal of the stereotypes that homosexual males must truly be women while lesbians must truly be males.

Defying this stereotypical mindset is AIP’s release of Girls in Prison from 1956, in which women in prison are assumed to be lesbians. Although this portrayal takes on the common mid-twentieth century suggestion that homosexuality connotes evil, actress Anne Carson as the seductive-turn-evil character of the film defies the butch lesbian stereotype with a beautiful and quite feminine image. As Barrios expresses, “Melanee…a steel magnolia inmate who uses her julep accent and coquettish manner to put the make on heroine Anne Carson...turns nasty and villainous and comes to a bad end, but what’s surprising is how she’s portrayed; no Hope Emerson type here. Helen Gilbert had been an ingénue at MGM in the late 1930s, and by 1956 her blond prettiness, while intact, had grown a shade frayed around the edges. If such a look may have been predictable for a genteel woman’s prison villainess, it was surprising and maybe even refreshing for a Hollywood portrayal of a lesbian. Lesbians onscreen, rare as they were, would less and less be associated with the tweedy old Mannish-Woman stereotypes, and for all her nastiness Melanee marked a small step forward” (249).

PART THREE

Both “Screened Out” and The Celluloid Closet portray various ways in which audiences perceived homosexuals onscreen and in which filmmakers scripted them. Most of the time, gay individuals were seemingly trapped in the wrong sex’s body, were portrayed as evil, were portrayed as curable of homosexual tendencies, or were forced to play it straight. In Nazi Germany, homosexuality was considered degenerate, straying from social norms. It is interesting that in German society, two men portrayed in the nude together in a piece of art was considered acceptable and masculine if the men were strong German men with ideal physique. In American film even today, regardless of whether the men were masculine and had wives in children, they could be seen as homosexuals when together in certain “suggestive situations,” or hidden messages that Adorno addresses as perhaps more important than surface messages within film.

The movie Saved (Brain Dannelly, 2004) portrays the idea of homosexuality being a form of social deviance that can be fixed by religious redemption or heterosexual relationships. In the movie, the main character Mary’s (Jena Malone) boyfriend Dean (Chad Faust) tells her that he thinks he’s gay. In her own personal attempt to save him, Mary decides to break her promise of abstinence and has sex with him, thinking that this will cure him of his gayness, which was very unacceptable as they were devout Christians. Because Dean is not cured after sleeping with her, he is sent to another school. During one particular phone call, he is seen checking out another guy. This is very similar to what is described in “Screened Out” and Celluloid Closet. Although the main message of the movie is supposed to be positive in that it shows a girl’s realization that she can accept herself the way she is despite her struggle to conform to the rigid standards of her religion and that homosexuality can be accepted, it still suggests the attempt to cure homosexuality as if it were some illness or mental discrepancy. This movie is actually quite independent from the standards of the culture industry. Although it probably does fit some of the general standards, its story is quite different from any other. The fact that it is not quite so mainstream and that it deals with the issue of homosexuality and religion in such a comedic yet still meaningful way allows it to have a greater effect on the audience. The selected still from the movie shows Dean and his new boyfriend he found at the place he was supposed to be “cured.”

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0332375/19.jpg.html

The show Will & Grace, which began in 1998, is positive in that it portrays openly homosexual males as accepted within society. The two main gay men within the show, Will (Eric McComack) and (Sean Hayes) are accepted by their friends and although both are homosexual, both have very different personalities. Jack seems to portray the more stereotypical feminine gay man, while Will maintains a more masculine persona characterized by a dry sense of humor. There is even an episode in which Jack and Will go to a national television station to protest the cancellation of a show with homosexual content. In the scene portrayed, Will and Jack are in the same bed together and the actual main idea of the episode is the possibility of Jack and Will having slept together and the uncomfortable fact that they are best friends and not attracted to one another. The simple fact that the show was so successful and so widely watched by American audiences even with its overt portrayal of homosexuality shows a positive image of homosexuality. This is a product of the culture industry as it is a situational comedy aired on television mainly for the entertainment of a general audience. It does, however, seem to make a social statement in that it is a television show about homosexuals shown on national television, which would not have flown during the Production Code era in which the culture industry can be described as most rigid and forcedly mainstream.

http://www.prosieben.de/spielfilm_serie/will_grace/popup_gallery/04130/index_2.php